Health: Flu

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What practical exercises have been carried out in the United Kingdom as part of the preparations to handle an outbreak of pandemic flu?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we continue to develop tests and review our preparedness measures in a proportionate way. We have tested our plans in major national and cross-government exercises such as "Winter Willow" in early 2007 and "Shared Goal" in 2006. Various regional and local exercises have also been conducted and the UK participated in the EU-wide simulation, "Common Ground". Lessons learnt from those exercises have been considered in the development of our national framework and other guidance, as well as in local planning.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I welcome the national framework document that the Government published last November, but am I right in believing that in the first wave of a flu pandemic, before a specific vaccine can be developed, the antiviral drug Tamiflu will be the only treatment available, but that to be effective it has to be administered within 48 hours of a patient's symptoms appearing? As, in the worst case, some millions of people could seek that treatment, how is that to be made available to patients? What is meant by a "simulation exercise"—the phrase used by the Secretary of State for Health—and was "Winter Willow" an example of a simulation? Did it involve real doctors, real nurses and a real national flu line manned by lay people?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I shall answer two of those questions. A simulation is an exercise in which participants are based in their own organisations and the control sends information and actions to participants to test communication flows and decision-making between those organisations. More than 5,000 people participated in "Winter Willow", including GPs, people from SHAs and many outside operations. We also do many real-life exercises in terms of distribution and so on. In respect of Tamiflu, I believe that it should be administered within 48 hours. We will have the national flu line to which the noble Lord referred. When people think they have flu, they phone that line and someone arranges to collect the Tamiflu to be administered to the patient. We will also have some vaccines available.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, what stocks of Tamiflu do the Government have available in the event of such a pandemic?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we currently have enough for 25 per cent of the population, and we are buying enough to cover 50 per cent of the population. Much of that will be available by the end of 2008 but some of it will become available in 2009-10.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, have the Government considered pre-pandemic vaccination with a vaccine that resembles, but is not totally, the virus that will infect the population eventually so that it will confer some immunity? If they have taken that into consideration and will leave the vaccination until after the flu pandemic starts, what are the logistics of the vaccination exercise? Are GPs going to do it, or are there sufficient staff in the community—community nurses and others—to carry out the exercise?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we have a stockpile of H5N1 vaccine and we are closely watching scientific developments to see whether any other vaccines might come available which would ensure that people could be vaccinated as soon as there is a pandemic. If the science is there, we will buy the vaccines. An exercise starting later this month will look at the medicines and healthcare consumables supply chain for primary and community care to ensure that people are prepared in the community to get these vaccines out.

Lord Soley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the importance of our role on intergovernmental organisations in relation to pandemics, not just of flu but also of other communicable diseases? Is she also aware that the newly set-up ad hoc Select Committee on intergovernmental organisations has chosen communicable diseases as its first area of study because it regards it as so important?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I was aware of the important role of international organisations, but I was not aware that it was the subject of the new committee chaired by my noble friend. I am delighted that it has chosen this important topic.

Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, do the Government have simulation exercises on the ground foreshadowing targeted prophylaxis, which is what Tamiflu is aimed at? When the Select Committee of this House looked at the issue, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that Tamiflu would be given only to people who had been diagnosed with flu, which is directly contrary to the use envisaged in targeted prophylaxis? Can the Minister reassure me that we have gone further than that now?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I understand that simulations are taking place on the ground, but if I am incorrect I shall write to the noble Lord. We are looking at the much wider use of Tamiflu. Indeed, we are now looking at the possibility of providing Tamiflu not only for a person who has been diagnosed with flu but also for the wider family within that household.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does that mean that, after all this learned knowledge, the vaccination I had for flu is no damn good?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it will be extremely important for the noble Baroness in relation to the usual flu viruses this year. However, in a pandemic it will not be as effective as she would wish.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work that the churches are doing ecumenically to respond pastorally in such a crisis? Do the Government see the pastoral work done by clergy of the faith communities and all the churches as part of their strategy in responding to such a crisis?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, faith groups have been involved in pandemic influenza preparations across government. We warmly welcome that; indeed, we depend on faith groups in many ways and we are grateful to them.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I return to the antiviral agents and to Tamiflu in particular. It is recognised that overuse of antiviral agents may lead to resistance to them in the virus. Have the Government taken that into account in their plans for simulating a flu outbreak? What alternate antiviral agents will be available should resistance to Tamiflu develop?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government have taken that into account and are supporting and monitoring research on viral resistance to influenza antivirals. We are looking at alternative products. I shall write to the noble Lord with further details.

Apprenticeships

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the completion rates for apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the most recent provisional figures for 2006-07, collected for management information purposes, show completion rates of 65.1 per cent for apprenticeships and 64.2 per cent for advanced apprenticeships. The figures are provisional until publication of the LSC's outcomes statistical first release in April 2008, which will confirm the final results for 2006-07.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister, although it would have been better if we had known what that was 65 per cent of. However, he will no doubt agree that a completed apprenticeship is enormously valuable to the individual and to the country as a whole. Last year, the All-Party Group on Arts and Heritage met employers in constructional skills and heard that most of the expertise is in the small firms. Those firms are very willing to train apprentices but find that they lose out badly when they do; not only do they incur a financial loss in training but the people they train are in such demand that they leave for better-paid jobs. Does the Minister agree that the answer is to directly fund employers that provide this specialised training to ensure that they can continue to provide it? Will he assure us that that will be taken into consideration?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am well aware that many employers feel that it would be better if there was direct funding, for precisely the reasons that the noble Baroness describes. However, a great many small employers have said that they would rather group their activity because they do not find it administratively efficient to do it directly themselves. That has been the overwhelming evidence from the small and medium-sized business sector. I think we will find that one size does not fit all and that we will need to respond to the different kinds of business case in the ways that those businesses think are most effective.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, will further thought be given to the award of an apprenticeship diploma to recognise the achievement of those who do complete apprenticeships?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the alignment of different kinds of qualifications for those coming through further education or for adults who go through these courses is obviously important. We have the general introduction of diplomas and other arrangements in further education, a matter on which I know the noble Baroness is an expert, and it is critical that the outcome of an apprenticeship should be recognised within a scheme that bears relationship across all of those. Fortunately, the preparatory work is being done by the same groups and we have every reason to think that an alignment of qualifications will be achieved.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is there not evidence to suggest that the quality of entrants to apprenticeship programmes is being undermined by our target of 50 per cent of people going into higher education?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend is right. The entry qualifications to get into an apprenticeship either at the basic level, level 2, or the advanced level, level 3, are boundaries that employers are setting in terms of the outcomes they seek. I would prefer that that was decided by employers rather than in Whitehall as I think that we are likely to get the people we need in the economy more effectively that way. I do not think that people going into higher education per se makes the difference, but I certainly would like to see schools consider alternatives to higher education where that is more appropriate for the young person involved.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, according to the Leach review of skills, over one-third of adults of working age in the UK do not have a basic school-leaving qualification and 5 million adults have no qualifications at all. What plans do the Government have to widen adults' access to apprenticeships?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the plan overall is that there should be a considerable advance in the availability of apprenticeships to adults. It will be essential to raise the standards of many of those leaving school at 16 if we are to drive through to people continuing to 18, and some of the plans which my right honourable friend Ed Balls has announced to ensure one-to-one mentoring of young people who have not achieved appropriate literacy and numeracy standards are intended to ensure that those young people are prepared for the world of apprenticeship.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether there could be sufficient provision in the foundation level and in additional and specialised learning in the diplomas to enable people who see themselves as apprentices to get sufficient hands-on practical work?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that some of the streams that have been identified in the new diplomas will have exactly that effect. The new diplomas have not been rolled out yet, and whether they have the whole of that effect will be seen in practice rather than just in theory. I will ensure that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is drawn to the attention of those working on the pathways through diplomas to ensure that we get that outcome.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is excess demand for apprenticeships from young people and that not enough places are currently being provided by employers? What plans do the Government have to encourage employers to take on more apprentices?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I know that some of the evidence about the extent of demand is anecdotal, but I personally, as I said in debate in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, last Monday, completely accept the credibility of the argument put by the noble Baroness. It is essential that the work that the CBI and other partners are doing to encourage more employers into the sphere is undertaken with great energy. At the moment, about 130,000 employers are engaged in the scheme. We believe that that number can be increased considerably. With the leadership of businesses such as Tesco and Rolls-Royce, which are putting in a good deal of effort, for which I commend them, into growing the number of employers, there are good prospects that we will increase those numbers considerably.

Housing: Home Loans

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made an assessment of the study by the charity Citizens Advice, Set Up to Fail, which suggested that many aspiring home owners have been mis-sold unsuitable and costly home loans that are doomed to fail from the start.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, independent regulation of mortgages and credit by the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading helps to ensure that borrowers are afforded suitable protections and have appropriate means of redress. The Government are also taking steps to help address debt problems, including by improving financial capability and funding a range of debt advice to help support those experiencing difficulties in repaying their mortgages. The Citizens Advice report will help to inform the Government's thinking on those issues.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Let me try an even simpler question: does he think that the current regulatory regime for vulnerable people who borrow from debt consolidators on second mortgages or who are lured into sale and leaseback arrangements is adequate? If so, can he name one reputable financial services organisation or charity that agrees with him?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the simple question, and I will give a simple answer: no, we do not think that the regulatory regime is adequate in the two instances to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention. That is why the Financial Services Authority is addressing its regulatory role and why the Office of Fair Trading is taking on board the additional level of scrutiny possible because of the passing of the Consumer Credit Act 2006. There are potential difficulties in this area. The Government are all too well aware of the necessity for help for people who may have these problems.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the CAB report is very serious and cites some heartbreaking cases, as I am sure that my noble friend is aware. Importantly, it states that, unlike in the crisis in the 1990s, where lenders were at an equivalent level, lenders appear to be going to the court for possession rather more quickly. The CAB report makes serious recommendations on that and on sale and leaseback, which is especially worrying. Will the Government act appropriately to reply to the CAB report?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I emphasised, we are watching the sale and leaseback position especially carefully, because it is giving rise to great anxiety. My noble friend is also right to say that the speed with which some institutions are calling in their debts is giving rise to anxiety. We will ensure that the maximum amount of advice is available to people faced with those problems. I may add that we are talking about economic conditions far removed from those of 1991, when, in any case, the number of mortgage repossessions was three times the level at which they are now.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the most serious cases to which this Question refers, loans are being given that are doomed from the start because the individuals to whom they are given have quite inadequate means to pay them back? In those most serious cases, would not the power of deterrence be of great value by the wider use of criminal prosecution, which could have a great meaning across the board if some well-publicised cases were brought?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with considerable authority on this area. I have already emphasised that we are all too well aware of the dangers, particularly on sale and rent-back arrangements that can precipitate problems for individuals. We are tightening up the regulatory regime; my noble friend will also be aware that we now have additional powers on, for example, the control of advertising. That is one way in which we can help to control this problem.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one category of loans doomed to fail from the start is that where the loan value, from the outset, is significantly greater than the value of the house? Will he therefore, through the Chancellor, instruct the current management of Northern Rock, to stop offering its Together loan? I was enthusiastically offered one of those on Friday evening; it still offers 125 per cent of the value of the house to people who ring up and require a mortgage.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Northern Rock is a private company that takes private decisions at this stage. Government anxieties about Northern Rock are acute, and it will be important to take action in the very near future. We hope that that action will be along the lines that the Government have always advocated.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, in the light of that point, will the Minister place in the Library what evidence the Government have that the assets of Northern Rock exceed the value of the loans that the Government have arranged to advance to it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, those are the figures of a private organisation, and I should have thought that the noble Lord would have recognised that it is public that Northern Rock is owed a hundred billion pounds' worth of mortgages and that the amount lent from the Treasury is a fraction of that. Of course, none of us denies that Northern Rock is in crisis, and the noble Lord has found a deft way to emphasise its difficulties. He will be aware that the Government are strenuously employed in finding a solution to its problems.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, the Minister has just told us that in his view the regulatory regime is inadequate. For how long has that been the Government's view?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the regulatory regime to which I referred is the examination that the Financial Services Authority promised to carry out in the summer of last year regarding its powers. It has promised to report in the first quarter of this year; it intends to do so and thus identify where the regulatory regime position needs to be strengthened.

Prisoners: Rehabilitation

Lord Dearing: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to increase the resources committed to the rehabilitation of life prisoners who have served more than their tariff.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all life-sentence prisoners should have a sentence plan that includes appropriate interventions to promote rehabilitation, including where their tariffs have expired. In negotiating service-level agreements with prisons, regional offender managers will need to take this into account when allocating resources.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. My Question derived from the experience of a man who was convicted of murder at the age of about 20 and given a tariff of 15 years. He has now been in prison for 27 years, consistently denying the offence. I understand that the rehabilitation of such long-term prisoners is based very much on acceptance of their guilt. Does the Minister accept that rehabilitation needs to be aimed especially at those who, like the man I mentioned, deny their guilt? Secondly, does the Minister accept that, with more lifers in British prisons than in the whole of France, Germany, Russia and Turkey combined, the very high levels of recidivism among prisoners and the Government's need to double their planned expenditure on prisons to £2.5 billion to accommodate an extra 10,000 prisoners, we have an urgent need to review the amount of money that we are spending on the successful rehabilitation of prisoners so that they become good citizens rather than stay in prisons?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some profound questions about prison policy. The release of prisoners such as the ones he mentions is a matter for the Parole Board and is done on the basis of risk of harm.
	On access to programmes for people who deny their offence, some offender management programmes will not be suitable because they are concerned with discussions about the offence itself, but other educational and training programmes are available, and people who have denied their offence are regularly released by the Parole Board.
	On the noble Lord's general question, we are due to debate that. The Government believe that they are on track, that they have the right programme and that prison is and should be available for the most serious offences but that community sentences should be used for other offenders.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government are cutting prison funding next year by some 3 per cent. How on earth will that improve the ability of the Prison Service to do its job?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Ministry of Justice itself will see a 1.7 per cent reduction per year in real terms over the next CSR period. There is indicative funding for the National Offender Management Service, from which the Prison Service is funded, of a 2.5 per cent cash increase per annum over the CSR period. Extra resources will be made available for the expansion of prison programmes. I do not deny that this is a challenging budget, but we will do everything that we can to ensure that the kind of programmes to which the noble Lord has referred will remain funded in the future. It is worth making the point that, in the past few years, we have seen a considerable expansion in those offender management programmes.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, in 1999, I published, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, a report on lifers. It contained figures produced by the then Lord Chief Justice that showed that 60 per cent of all lifers were exceeding their tariff by at least a year before being released. That is not to say that they should all be released but, hidden among this, in addition to those in denial, were a large number of people who never got into any programmes. The administration in the service for seeing them out was inefficient. Will the Minister say what the percentage is now? Surely in times of heavy overcrowding, you want to get rid of the people who should not be there, including the people who are of no risk and with a tariff that has expired.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have hard figures available, although I fully understand the noble Lord's point. I am not aware of lifers with problems getting on accredited offender behaviour management programmes, but we will continue to keep this matter very much under review. It is worth making the point that there has been very encouraging progress in increasing the number of programmes that have been made available.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, despite the pressure on resources, are there any plans in the next year to increase the number of Parole Board places? In light of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, does the Minister concede that offending behaviour courses should be available in all prisons where people serving life sentences are housed?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the second point, it is very important that the allocation of prisoners is done in a flexible way to make sure that the programmes to which the noble Baroness has referred are available. That is part of the changes and developments that have now taken place in the Prison Service. As far as the Parole Board is concerned, there have been issues around oral hearings, a significant percentage of which have had to be deferred for one reason or another. We are very concerned to see that those difficulties are ironed out. A current National Audit Office study is looking at this matter and we will take that forward with a great deal of enthusiasm.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, in considering these important and complex matters, does the Minister agree that underlying all these decisions should be the protection of the innocent public?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. There has been an increase in prison population, but part of that is because more offenders have been brought to justice. The aim of my department is to ensure that prison is available for those serious offenders who ought to be in prison. The other side of the policy is to encourage the use of community sentences, which can be hard sentences but none the less do not require the use of prison. We are getting the balance right at the same time as crime levels are coming down.

Lord Monson: My Lords, if an individual is kept in prison for longer than the period that the trial judge deemed appropriate for the crime originally committed, he is, in effect, being punished no longer for what he has done in the past but for what it is feared he might do in the future. In other words, he is being kept in preventive detention in all but name. That being the case, should he not be granted as many privileges as possible, provided that security, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie pointed out, is not jeopardised?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. The release post-tariff of prisoners serving life sentences is a question for the Parole Board, as it must be. Its decisions are taken on the basis of its assessment of the risk. As far as indeterminate prison sentences are concerned, there is concern about those short-term sentences where the kind of programmes that noble Lords have mentioned are not yet available. We are putting our energies into that area at the moment.

Local Transport Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, that the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 7Schedule 1Clauses 8 to 40Schedule 2Clause 41Schedule 3Clauses 42 to 67Schedule 4Clauses 68 to 97Schedule 5Clauses 98 to 109Schedule 6Clauses 110 to 115Schedule 7Clauses 116 to 119.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Climate Change Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
	Clause 26 [The Committee on Climate Change]:

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Clause 26, page 13, line 39, leave out "Committee" and insert "Commission"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 122. We now turn to Part 2 and look in more detail at the structure, role and functions of the Committee on Climate Change. Much of our discussions on the Bill have concerned that key body created by the Bill, the Committee on Climate Change. In particular, there has been much discussion and debate on how it will fit in with the roles of government and Parliament. I think that Members of the Committee will agree that there has been widespread acknowledgement of how important it will be to get right the triangular balance between the Secretary of State, who will represent the Government, Parliament, which will represent the people, and the committee, which will represent science and expertise.
	There have been differences. The Minister, while taking much of our argument, has been cautious in conceding executive power to the committee, although as the Bill has progressed through the Committee stage, he has acknowledged that much determination of the targets and budgets will rest with the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has expressed concern that the committee should not become politicised. We in the Opposition agree with him. However, we see that the success of this legislation is very much dependent on getting the role of the committee right. We have pointed out repeatedly that as the Bill is currently drafted, it too frequently draws back from putting the committee centre stage, as we believe it must. In this we have been widely supported by noble Lords from all sides of the House who were involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill through the Joint Committee of both Houses.
	We have been saying since Second Reading that the Committee on Climate Change needs to be beefed up in its role. I was pleased to hear that this view has widespread support across the House. We have also emphasised—and again I believe this is a shared objective of all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate—that the committee needs to be independent, authoritative and expert. Its activities need to be based on the science of the issue and its decisions need to reflect the science on which they are based. My vision is that in this way it will be a more effective and useful partner to the Government and Parliament in achieving the success of this legislation. I have frequently drawn attention to the difficulties. This is why the committee's authority is so important. It needs to be of consequence and it needs to be seen to be of consequence. I believe that this view is widely shared.
	For this reason we have tabled these two amendments which change the name of the committee to reflect its role and functions, to reinforce its status and authority, and to proclaim its independence. The change would create the Commission on Climate Change, which we believe is a more appropriate name for the body. The name "committee" applies to a body set up to undertake a function and which receives its authority from an existing body. For example, we are sitting here as a committee by virtue of the fact that we have had the business of the House committed to us. Similarly, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, a body performing functions comparable in importance with the Committee on Climate Change, is rightly so called because it is constituted by the higher authority vested in the Bank. Though the importance may be similar, its status is different. A commission is a task or a duty derived directly from the authority of the Crown or statute. Thus it is exactly the right term for our purposes in this Bill. It reflects the role and function, status and authority, and independence of this key body.
	This change is not mere semantics and it is certainly not cosmetic. It would give its members the status of commissioners and create a public sense that this is not just an exclusively advisory body. To this end we move this amendment. It will in a very real way ensure that the Government and Parliament can draw on the strength and authority of the body they have created to assist them in stopping climate change. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I support this amendment because it takes forward a discussion in which I have participated on two previous occasions. I refer to the whole question of the triangular balance between the three organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, referred.
	At the weekend I watched our debates last week on the Parliament channel, in particular a debate held on the second day in Committee that I missed when I went for a cup of tea. In that debate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, argued that he was passionately against the principle that the committee should be given the additional powers for which the Conservative Front Bench and I have been arguing. I have had time to reflect on his words and I understand perfectly where he is coming from. In the light of that speech, I have tried to work out another structure that might meet the concerns felt by some noble Lords on both sides of the Committee about the nature of this relationship.
	My mind went back to the period between 1981 and 1990 when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons. I considered the nature of the relationship between the accounting officers of departments of state—the Permanent Secretaries—and the National Audit Office. In those conditions, reports coming before the Public Accounts Committee had to be agreed. Last Monday, I rang the Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee and asked him whether he could find me some background text on the nature of that relationship. Using this amendment as a peg, I want to draw that information to the attention of the Committee because I hope that it might influence our debate and that held in the other place when it comes to consider the Bill.
	As I understand the relationship, there is no statutory basis for the principle of agreeing reports. It seems to have its roots in customs and practice. A Treasury publication entitled Managing Public Money states:
	"The PAC expects that [the] NAO will agree the texts of these reports with the Accounting Officer(s) of the organisation(s) concerned ... What this means in practice is that the factual content of every report is taken by the Committee to be undisputable. There are occasional disagreements"—
	if we were to translate those into the circumstances we are talking about today, it might well be the case that there would be disputes here—
	"between the NAO and a Department about the interpretation of the facts, but these are clearly signalled. This in part, according to the NAO, arises from a report on Redundancy Compensation Payments to University Staff. At the first hearing on this, in January 1986"—
	a hearing which I attended—
	"the PUS at the DES appeared to dispute a point of fact in the report. The Committee postponed consideration of the report until April that year, to give time for the NAO and the Department to agree a joint minute to the Committee".
	The minute deals with the relationship which is at the very heart of this debate, and I want to refer to it. It was provided for the Public Accounts Committee on 23 April 1986 and in paragraph 4 stated:
	"In agreeing the Report there was, as DES have said, extensive correspondence between NAO, DES and UGC and discussions that went on for quite some time (Q781). Throughout these exchanges the NAO assumed that departments understood that, in agreeing his Reports with departments, the C&AG's intention was to establish that:
	(i) all material and relevant facts had been included;
	(ii) the facts were not in dispute;
	(iii) their presentation was fair;
	(iv) where the Report stated any NAO views or conclusions which the Department were unable to agree, this was made clear and the NAO's and Department's reasons properly represented, with all necessary balance".
	This is important because here we are talking about the relationship between the department and the committee, where I believe that there is scope for amending the Bill.
	The minute went on to say:
	"DES, however, understood that they were required only to satisfy themselves that the Report's presentation of the relevant facts was fair. They did not consider they had been invited to express a view on the C&AG's findings. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if there were continuing differences of understanding between departments and the NAO in clearing Reports. Action is therefore being taken by the NAO to remove any uncertainty that may exist, and to clarify the objectives of the clearance arrangements on the lines set out in paragraph 4 above. As a result, although there should always be agreement that the Report fairly presents all the material and relevant facts, it might disclose difficult differences of view between the C&AG and the Department over the interpretation of the facts and the conclusions to be drawn from them. This has long been accepted by PAC and does not stand in the way of agreeing that a Report is an appropriate basis for subsequent PAC consideration".
	In other words, an accommodation was found.
	If we were to apply that principle, which works in this relationship between the NAO and departments, to the debate we are having here, it would mean, effectively, that both sides would have to agree. We are not saying that the committee only would be able to veto a government view; it would mean that they would have to put their heads together to agree facts, findings and conclusions—and, indeed, in our case, recommendations. It would create within this committee's relationship with the Government a dynamic tension that would concentrate the mind of the committee on taking realistic and right decisions. At the same time, it would concentrate, within Government, the need to compromise with the committee's objectives. In the event that they could not agree a position, no action would be taken. In those circumstances, it might well be referred to the committee. Last week, I proposed that there be a sort of climate change ad hoc Select Committee, which would intervene to deal with issues where agreement could not be found and try to take the whole process forward.
	Effectively, we would have two vetoes: the right for the Government to veto and the right for the committee to veto. In those circumstances, they would seek to agree. I believe that we should be going down that kind of route, as against giving the Government, with all the pressures I have referred to on previous occasions, the right simply to block what Parliament and the committee might feel to be a very constructive way forward in implementing policy on climate change.
	I have, perhaps, slightly abused debates in the Chamber today, but this is the only opportunity that remains for me to set out an alternative way of dealing with the problem of this relationship. The reality is that those of us who want to give the committee power are, at the moment, losing the argument because the Government insist on saying no. I understand the departmental decisions that will have been taken. I am trying to feed in an alternative approach and I ask my noble friend to consider it seriously.

Lord Teverson: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for that useful explanation. I will go back through that before Report stage. I wonder whether we are talking about similar things, even though I am sure that there are differences. The National Audit Office is very useful, in that we on these Benches see a stronger role for the Committee on Climate Change than is in the Bill at the moment. We will, I hope, come to this amendment later this afternoon. The Committee on Climate Change should have a very positive role in auditing, assessing and judging the policies of the Government in meeting the budgets and targets that it has set itself. In that area, the Committee on Climate Change has a huge responsibility, one that is not in the Bill at the moment. The noble Lord will know all this far better than me, given his deeper experience.
	The National Audit Office would not, therefore, take forward something in, for example, education, saying which policies are needed, and that we should go 100 per cent down the route of academies, or whatever. However, I do not see that as coming within the body's role. It assesses what is going on, the areas of value and all those other areas where it might well disagree with government. In the end that has to be resolved. These Benches agree with that and may come back to that debate later this afternoon.
	As regards the amendment, we have thought long and hard about this area. We fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, about the need to strengthen the climate change committee in all sorts of ways. I regard the name issue slightly more subjectively and do not reject his analysis of the derivation of the word "commission" and the various rights that that normally confers. Over the weekend I put "commission" into Google, which came up with the Forestry Commission, the Gambling Commission, the Sustainable Development Commission, the Human Genetics Commission, the Low Pay Commission—noble Lords could probably do with its help occasionally—the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Electoral Commission. One could compare the gravitas and fear of government that those bodies induce with that induced by the Monetary Policy Committee; I know which one has real power within the nation state of the United Kingdom—the Monetary Policy Committee has far more power than the others. It has a different style of governance to many of the commissions that I mentioned although they are extremely varied in that respect. Nevertheless, I consider that the Monetary Policy Committee has the most power, and certainly the most authority, of the bodies that I listed. The electoral—

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Does the noble Lord agree that the full title of that body is the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England? It is of the Bank of England. The climate change committee is not a committee of anything. That is the inconsistency in its name that I am trying to point out.

Lord Teverson: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I clearly do not disagree with him but, as I said in my opening remarks, I am talking about gravitas, respect and a subjective view of how these things are looked at. From my early political days, when I thought of a UK commission I considered a royal commission. Royal commissions have a reputation for dealing with worthy causes that are kicked into the long grass. The word "commission" arouses such connotations in many cases. However, there are exceptions: for example, the Electoral Commission. Noble Lords may not be in awe of that body because they do not stand for election but that is not the case with people who do stand for election. Certainly, life Peers do not stand for election in this House; I apologise for having omitted the others.
	The European Commission is extremely important and authoritative but does not operate in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, "commission" is French for committee and I believe that the climate change committee is the best title. The title of the Monetary Policy Committee does not in any way lessen that body's authority. I accept that I speak from a subjective, political point of view but I do not like "commission", which to me conveys within the British political culture the concept of long grass, arm's length and a matter that government will ignore unless they really have to do otherwise.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Had the noble Lord been a commissioner of the Manpower Services Commission, as I was many years ago, I do not think that he would have said that. At that time, it was extremely important that the Manpower Services Commission was seen to be completely separate from the Department of Employment. When the Secretary of State for Employment came to the commission, he came because it had invited him or he had asked whether he could come and it had agreed to that. He could not just walk in because he was in charge of it and it was a committee of his department. I therefore, think that my noble friend has a point.
	The public may be mystified by what "commission" means. That is not surprising because the noble Lord from the Liberal Front Benches made rather a muddle of his speech in that he mixed up the European Commission and much lesser bodies in this country, which all have separate functions. Politically, however, my noble friend has a good point and I I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. The Government ought to consider it seriously.
	I hope the noble Lord, Lord May, will contribute—no, he has disappeared. The authority of the body is critical. If it is going to advise in the way described in this part of the Bill, it must have authority and must be accepted as having that authority. For that reason, my noble friend is making a good point.

Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene but I want to say that my noble friend made a very good point when he suggested that names matter. I share his doubts about the effectiveness of the word "committee". Having listened to the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I suggest—perhaps out of a sense of nostalgia—that if "commission" is not acceptable, we might consider "authority". I was chairman of the National Rivers Authority. There were those who argued that it should not have been "national" because it did not cover Scotland, but it did give us an authority from the start that a lesser title would not have provided. I believe that, as a consequence, we proved to be a very effective organisation.
	I support my noble friend's amendment because it is important to strengthen the authority by giving it a more powerful name. When we come to Report, if there is some doubt about "commission", I put forward a possible alternative of calling the body the "climate change authority".

Lord Rooker: I realise that Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 refer only to the name, but both the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours went somewhat beyond that. I will do that myself because I feel that we have been with the Committee on Climate Change since we started the Committee stage, to be honest. As this is the first of the debates on the committee, I want to use the opportunity to set out our vision for the role of the Committee on Climate Change. The name of the body is relatively unimportant, but I realise that what is being bandied about here are different views on its function, which we will probably come to in other amendments.
	We are establishing the Committee on Climate Change for two reasons. First, it is being set up to provide independent and expert analytical advice to the United Kingdom Government and devolved Administrations on the pathway to 2050. Secondly, the committee, with Parliament, will help hold the Government and, for that matter, the country as a whole, accountable for the progress we are making towards our 2050 target. Balancing all the factors that influence the optimum pathway to 2050 is a complex and technical task. The implications of the route chosen for the UK's economy and society will be far-reaching; we have accepted that in our debates so far.
	We are talking about big numbers; the impact assessment for the Bill talks about tens of billions of pounds. That is why it is important that the committee is able to provide independent, expert, transparent and credible analysis. That is also why it is so important that we get the balance of power between the different institutions exactly right. We have talked a lot so far about the relationship between the Government, the committee and Parliament; today we want to add "the public" to that list. If we do not have a system that is accountable to the public, we will have failed. I will come back to that point shortly.
	First, I want to set out how we see the committee. It is an arm's-length, advisory, non-departmental public body. By definition, therefore, it is independent of government. We have listened to the views of the Joint Committee of both Houses and others, and we have taken even greater steps to ensure the committee's independence, as set out in our response to the pre-legislative scrutiny process.
	Secondly, the Committee on Climate Change must be expert. Recruitment to the shadow body is well advanced. We are looking for world-class experts, who will be backed by a strongly analytical secretariat. We have increased the budget for the committee secretariat by about 50 per cent since the publication of the draft Bill less than a year ago. The quality of the committee's analysis will be key to its credibility; it must balance all the relevant factors—scientific, social and economic—in coming to its advice.
	Thirdly, the committee must be transparent. As I indicated in our discussions on Part 1, we are looking again at whether that can be strengthened further. We have already discussed the committee extensively during our previous discussions on Part 1, and it has become clear that in some important respects the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, takes a different approach to that of the Bill. I apologise for taking some extra time now, but I want to set this out clearly ahead of our debates on the rest of Part 2.
	We need to ensure that the system that we design in the Bill is democratically accountable. The proposals put forward previously would mean that the Committee on Climate Change would essentially be responsible for taking decisions. The Government's only options would be to do what the committee said or to do nothing at all. As I said previously, the decisions about how we reduce our carbon emissions will have far-reaching consequences and therefore, as the Joint Committee noted during pre-legislative scrutiny, it is only right that those are made by an elected body. Delegating such decisions to an unelected committee would undermine democratic accountability.
	The history of the Bill demonstrates the importance of ensuring that we have a democratically accountable system that responds to public demand for action. If the Committee on Climate Change were responsible for taking decisions, how would it be accountable to the public? For instance, if the public wanted to reduce emissions more quickly than the committee, how would they ensure that the committee listened? Could they vote the committee out of office? Obviously not. For that matter, how would Parliament be able to hold the committee to account? We have well established mechanisms for Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account, and we would need to duplicate those so that Parliament could hold the committee to account. Ultimately, such decisions are for the Government of the day, who are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the people of this country.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Would it be possible to call the committee an advisory committee?

Lord Rooker: It might be possible; it might mess up the nice ring of CCC. I am sure that all advice and suggestions are welcomed by the House and by the Government. I have made it clear that it is an advisory committee. I digress, but I remember that when ACAS was set up it was not called ACAS—I was on the Standing Committee in the other place—and the "A" was added during the course of the legislation. The suggestion made by my noble friend is welcome, but I cannot comment on it today.
	The climate change committee's role is to provide the best possible advice on the level of budgets and to hold the Government and the country accountable for progress towards them. The Government's view is that the committee should not have a role in choosing the policy mechanisms most appropriate for meeting the budgets. I admit to agreeing with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, when he said in last Tuesday's debate that if the committee starts making major policy recommendations to government, it would not depoliticise the decisions but would utterly politicise the committee.
	I will comment briefly on the contribution of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. With him, I had the privilege of serving on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place—the only Select Committee I ever served on, and I did so for two years—and our period on it overlapped. I much enjoyed it and learned far more about the machinery of government in two years on that committee than I learned in 16 years on the Opposition Front Bench. I freely admit. I am also a strong supporter of the NAO. One of the reasons why the Public Accounts Committee never has a Minister as a witness is that it does not do policy. There is that distinction about the role of the NAO and the PAC, which does not do policy, although I know it comes across in the media as doing policy. In fact, a Minister is nominally a member of the committee. I fully take on board the point of my noble friend about the agreement on the publication of the reports. It is an important point and one that is usually ignored and underrated by those who comment on the work of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, there are already a number of bodies with expertise in specific areas to which the Government can look for recommendations on suitable policy instruments. What we need from the Committee on Climate Change—this is why we are creating it—is an entirely new body that provides independent, expert and credible advice on the science and economics involved and on how quickly, from a practical point of view, we can move towards our 2050 target.
	For the advice to be credible, it must be formulated outside the political arena and therefore above decisions on the particular choice of policy mechanisms. We should also bear in mind that any attempt to depoliticise decisions about policies by delegating them to the committee, for example, would also—here again I am fully in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—de-democratise them. We could take, for example, the question of nuclear power. The Government have set out their position. We know that there are a range of views within the country on the issue but it is important that the Government are held accountable by Parliament and the people for their decisions on matters such as this. We would not want the Committee on Climate Change to be responsible for these sorts of decisions. We strongly believe that our vision of the role and the functions of the committee is right. We need a body that is independent, transparent and influential with a strong focus on analysis and evidence. I very much expect that is what we will be able to create. As I have said, we have raised the budget for support by 50 per cent. It will be almost if not directly equivalent to the backup provided for the Stern committee; the House of Lords and the country received its valuable report just over a year ago.
	I turn to the amendments, which this debate hangs on. They involve simply changing the committee's name. So far as the name is concerned—this is the advice I have received—there is absolutely no legal significance within the machinery of government in which it will operate or in the context of the Bill itself. I am almost saying that it does not matter; the argument might therefore be, "If it does not matter, do it". However, noble Lords have hung on the proposed change of name things other than a change of name. There has been an attempt to hang changes of functions, of authority and of power—those involve going beyond the advisory role on the change of name. On that basis, of course, it is not an argument that the Government can accept. We believe that referring to the organisation—it is a non-departmental public body—as a committee is perfectly fine and we do not consider the amendment would add anything of value. I say that in the context of what we want the committee to do. If those who want to change the name are happy to accept the parameters of the vision of what we want it to do, that is one message. But that is not the message of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor: they are hung with changing the functions and the nature of the committee. We want to keep it as it currently is, and therefore do not believe that changing the name would add anything of value to our vision for the committee.

Lord Campbell-Savours: What, in principle, is wrong with the requirement that the committee agrees a report on facts, findings and recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change?

Lord Rooker: With respect, I have not really addressed my noble friend's point; it went somewhat beyond the amendment, so I am not briefed on it. In principle, I suspect that there is nothing wrong with that. The argument is that the facts and transparency of the Committee on Climate Change are inevitably going to have to lead to an agreement. It is not reporting as the NAO reports; it is reporting on a specific department's activities, looking at value for money, and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In order to get the debate right, there must be some agreement on either the budget and how the money is being spent—or mis-spent. When the NAO report is published, we do not want, as my noble friend says, the accounting officer of the department saying, "Well, these conclusions and recommendations are all very well, but the facts in the report are wrong". Well, no Permanent Secretary is ever in a position to say that, because the reports are only published after getting the department's agreement.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his reply and noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, whose contribution went some way to recognising the argument from the Opposition Benches. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—in all innocence, I think—revealed the weakness of what the Government are seeking to achieve when he suggested putting the word "advisory" in the title. As the Minister rightly said, all the Government want is an advisory committee; they do not want it to have any executive power.
	There is a real argument between the Opposition and the Government on this issue. I suspect that when the Bill was first proposed the climate change committee was probably seen as being much more executive and powerful than has subsequently been presented in the Bill and the words of the Minister. Looking at how the Bill will operate, it creates great difficulties for future Governments if it has a purely advisory body with no executive function. I suspect that driving climate change initiatives across all government departments will be a momentous task which will need authority and direction. That is why a climate change committee—or, as we prefer, "the commission on climate change"—is central to this purpose.

Lord Clinton-Davis: What would be the role of Parliament in that event?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: All matters must come before Parliament for approval, as they do under regulations and statutory instruments to this day. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested that an ad hoc committee would constantly monitor the whole process of climate change and how the balance between the Government and the commission would actually operate. That is an effective role for Parliament. Government will need the authority of Parliament to bring in the fourth party to that equation—the people. It is as representatives of the people that they are party to this; it is in the name of the people that all of this is being done.
	The Government have, for reasons of their own, somewhat funked the issue. Although I accept that my representations on the name are symbolic rather than substantial, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 171.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [The Committee on Climate Change]:

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Schedule 1, page 32, line 5, at end insert "not fewer than seven and not more than 12 members of which"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This group of amendments changes the nominations procedure for and the composition of the Committee on Climate Change. The adjustments to the structure of the committee are designed to make it more able to deal with the added duties we have placed on it and to make sure that it is more independent and scientific.
	Amendment No. 123 increases the size of the committee. We feel that eight people are not quite adequate to cover the extra responsibilities that our other amendments confer on the committee. In addition, we have some concerns about the nature of the issues that the Bill obliges the committee to consider and investigate. We believe that the scope should be slightly widened to include environmental science, the actual impact of climate change on people and wildlife and a host of other matters. We have tabled amendments to that effect that will be discussed later. I mention them now because we feel that it is important to ensure that the committee is able to give its due attention to those issues as well as to nominate people with the relevant expertise. We therefore feel it is important to increase the size of the committee to not fewer than seven or more than 12 members.
	The next amendment in this group relates to the nomination procedure. To ensure the independence of the committee, we believe that about half the appointments should come from the Royal Society. That would depoliticise the committee so that it would not be formed of people potentially beholden to Ministers, political parties or special interest groups. I expect there will be criticism and that it will be said that the Royal Society has its own internal politics. In previous debates, it has been said that the world of science is not monolithic in terms of agreement and unified opinion. We take the view that a body such as the Royal Society will not wish to do other than seek the nomination of the best individuals available if it wishes to retain its reputation. I hope that noble Lords will agree with the intention of this amendment to provide a mechanism, which is lacking in the Bill, to ensure that appropriate experts and scientists are appointed to the committee through an apolitical, independent and credible process. The body has work to do, and it needs the best.
	What assurances can the Minister give that people appointed to the climate change committee will be the best available to serve the body? Even if he can explain that nominations and appointments will be made with the utmost care and conscientiousness—and we do not doubt the Government's commitment to ensuring that the committee members are of the appropriate sort—there needs to be a provision in the Bill regarding these authorities. However, the responsibility for appointing the chair should rest with the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give any indication of when the appointment of the chairman of the shadow climate change committee will be announced?
	The Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. The final decision in these matters, notwithstanding the role of national authorities, should rest here in Westminster. In addition to the material advantage to the workings of the committee and its increased independence—indeed, perhaps because of these things—our amendments would go a long way to increasing public confidence in the committee and its independence. That factor will allow the recommendations to carry more weight and have more impact. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I support what I believe are probing amendments at this stage, but I very much support the feeling behind the previous amendments. I understand the Minister's difficulty: this is a new committee that will be meeting an objective that has not been set in political terms before, and there will be a range of vastly different views about how it should be set up. The Secretary of State will say that they picked the numbers and that any further changes will be almost as random as the original numbers.
	There is a case for increasing the number of committee members. I have a slight issue with the selection of committee members from the Royal Society. It is an eminent body that has done an enormous amount of work in the area—I know that many noble Lords have been to its debates on climate change—but the world of science is multifaceted and there are areas that might not be represented by the membership of the Royal Society.
	The role of political interference needs to be looked at. The membership of the committee, even though it is advisory, will affect vastly different areas within the business and social community. We need only look at the debate on the role of Heathrow at our previous sitting to realise that that will be the case. There might be a call for a member of the CBI to be one of the committee members; that would have its own consequences—maybe positive, maybe negative.
	I know that the Minister will set out the reasoning on why some of these amendments will not meet his favour, but I hope that he can give one assurance. Most of the amendments are to sub-paragraph (1). However, Paragraph 1(6) of the schedule states:
	"Any such order is subject to negative resolution procedure".
	It is very tempting to table an amendment stating that there should be an affirmative procedure. I hope that, if the Government are to reject the amendments, this is an ongoing process that is to be looked at regularly. Although I would not table an amendment saying that there should be an affirmative resolution, I very much hope that, because of the unique nature of the committee, the Minister will commit at this stage that, on the first occasion when the negative resolution could be debated, the Government will make time for a debate about the membership of the committee. This is not the only Climate Change Bill that we will ever debate; I believe that we will come back to the subject extremely regularly. If the Government could give the assurance that government time may be made available to debate the membership of the committee, some of the concerns that we have set out in the amendments could be met.

Lord Rees of Ludlow: I declare an interest as the current president of the Royal Society, and I would like to comment on the two amendments in which the society is explicitly mentioned. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has emphasised, the authority and standing of the Climate Change Committee is crucial. That will depend on the perceived quality and independence of its members. In particular, it must contain some members with real clout in the sciences of climate, environment and energy, along with the associated technologies—the technologies for adaptation and for mitigation.
	The Royal Society is the UK's main academy of sciences and it is routinely consulted by the Government on appointments to research councils and the like over the whole range of science and technology. Its involvement in proposing members of the committee would send a signal that the Government value independent input and expertise.
	I have two provisos. First, it would not be reasonable to expect that a body such as the Royal Society could actually appoint members; its role could solely be to make nominations, to be consulted and to advise. That is the current situation with respect to appointments to research councils and similar bodies where the Royal Society is consulted. Secondly, if just one scientific body were singled out as an interface with government in this context, I think that the Royal Society would be regarded as the most appropriate one. It spans the whole range of science and technology. However, its expertise is spread thin in some areas. Were the society to be entrusted with any special role, it should consult not only among its own fellowship but also with the Royal Academy of Engineering, relevant professional institutions and specialised societies.
	The motivation behind the amendment—that the Government should be obliged to draw on the best independent advice—would surely have the wide support of all of the scientific community, because the standing of the Climate Change Committee is a pre-requisite for achieving the Bill's aims. But when the Bill comes back, the wording might perhaps spell out more explicitly that the national authorities should be obliged to seek and note the best independent advice, even if the society cannot be expected actually to make nominations itself.

Baroness Northover: As we have heard, the strength, expertise and independence of the climate change committee is critical. In many ways, this is the heart of the Bill. How we move forward depends a great deal on the effectiveness and power of the committee. I am very concerned about its composition. I simply do not see here a body that will take through what we are all asking of it. I hope that the Government will look carefully before Report at its composition. We are all trying to head in the same direction, but I have severe doubts as to whether the committee, composed as it will be at the moment, could possibly carry through all that we want. I was disappointed when I looked at its make-up. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke just now of a committee that is independent and transparent, with a strong focus on analysis and research—I think that he said the latter. Can this do it? I am not at all sure. We have just heard the comments about the potential role of the Royal Society, which is worth considering.
	The committee is balanced between parts of the United Kingdom. It addresses business, the economic impact of changes that might be recommended, and so on. However, is there sufficient depth for original analysis of the problem and what ought to be done? I really doubt that there is proper balance on that. Is there deep knowledge of the problem and its worldwide impact? Again, I doubt it. I am especially worried about its potential analytical abilities. It therefore seems to me that the composition of this committee needs serious further work. We will be addressing other important aspects of the committee's composition, on international development, in the next group of amendments. I will return to the subject then, but we need to look again, thoroughly, at improving the committee's effectiveness and analytical power.

Lord Crickhowell: I strongly support my noble friend's proposal that the size of the committee should be increased; that, indeed, was the recommendation of the Joint Committee, which, while accepting that there must be an upper limit, felt that the numbers proposed by the Government were inadequate.
	I turn to the noble Baroness's remarks. These issues were carefully considered by the Joint Committee, and I do not share her view that the committee will be inadequate. Various suggestions have been made during our proceedings on how it might be strengthened. I see no reason why, given the right resources, its analytical powers should have shortcomings. My own experience of chairing such a public body is, I am glad to say, that as soon as it is in position, its members become strongly independent, wherever the nominations came from, and come together to act as an effective body. I hope that the noble Baroness will be surprised at how quickly it will start to be an effective team, wherever the representations come from.
	It is a great privilege, in a short debate, to follow the president of the Royal Society—and the master of my old college. We need to listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said about exactly how the Royal Society might perform its task. He made it clear that he does not think its role is simply to nominate, but that it can play an even more effective role by putting forward and consulting on the names in the manner that he suggested. We shall have to look carefully at his proposals before we come back on Report.
	I have some doubt about only one of my noble friend's amendments, the one that refers to the need for appointments to
	"be considered by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons".
	My doubt about that is simply one of timing. We are faced with an acute timing problem at present, because we all agree that there is an urgent need for the committee to get on with the tasks that it has been given. Indeed, if it does not get on quickly, it will not be able to fulfil some essential tasks in the timescales that we are setting. That is why it was such good news when we were told during the Joint Committee proceedings that an advisory committee was to be set up exactly as one was set up on the National Rivers Authority. I chaired that committee during the transition phase. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about how we are getting on with the appointments and the advisory committee.
	It will therefore not be possible, unless we seriously delay the proceedings in a way that might be very damaging, to have a great parliamentary approval process on this occasion. I can, however, see the advantage of building such a process into the legislation so that when further appointments are made in later years, Parliament has a role. That is my only qualification of the various amendments that my noble friend has tabled. I am absolutely certain that it is essential, if we are to have the kind of skills and knowledge that we need to be represented, to increase the size, as the Joint Committee proposed. I therefore hope that my noble friend will press the amendments to a vote at an appropriate moment, if not today.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Briefly, on the amendment that deals with a committee of the House of Commons, which committee is that? I have already identified six committees that would want to influence events, including the Transport Committee; the Trade and Industry Committee, with its responsibilities for energy; the Agriculture Committee; the Science and Technology Committee; and the environmental protection committee. All I am saying is that unless you create a new structure in the form that I suggested in my amendment last week—a sort of joint ad hoc Select Committee that combines all these committees, which are influencing this particular appointment, on the basis of the Quadripartite Committee in the House of Commons—some competitive differences might develop among committee chairmen in the other place.
	More widely, the amendments are premature. I am not altogether convinced that the model—which this House appears to be approving at this stage—for the powers and the structure of this committee and the way in which it relates to other committees in the tripartite arrangement to which the noble Lord refers and which my noble friend has qualified as an almost quadripartite arrangement by bringing the public into the equation as well, will work. When the House of Commons deals with these matters, it may want to amend these areas—hopefully. If it does, the amendments as a series may look very different.

Lord May of Oxford: I have three points to make, but first I declare an interest as the immediate predecessor of my noble friend Lord Rees as president of the Royal Society. My first point is about numbers. In the draft Bill, the committee, if we include the chairman, is six to nine people. The inevitable social pressures will tend to make the number nearer the upper limit. If my arithmetic is correct, the amendment would make this eight to 13. This is not a make-or-break decision, but I am in favour of the smaller committee for a reason that is science-based. Many people think of Northcote Parkinson as a writer of comic prose; I think of him as one of the more substantial contributors to social science. One of the things that he did was to trace from the cabal to the Star Chamber and to Harold Wilson's "kitchen cabinet" and outline the fact that as committees inevitably enlarged beyond about eight people, they began to condense out an inner core so that they could function. I strongly believe that "fewer is more" in this context but, as I say, that is a minor point.
	My second point concerns the idea of embedding in the Bill the requirement for broad consultation on the constitution in putting together the Committee on Climate Change. One might think that this is already covered in the protocols for science advice and policy making that were issued way back in 1996 and that have gone through successive rounds of strengthening in the hands of the regimes of two Chief Scientific Advisers. These enjoin that in any enterprise such as this there should be such consultation with appropriate experts. Writing it down and doing it are two different things. A deliberately vague but none the less specific example is one really important committee that was put together not that long ago to deal with scientific aspects of a particular debate for which there was another committee dealing with the general public consultation. The putting together of this committee was in the hands of a junior official who consulted within the DTI and Defra. He put together a committee of 20 people—they were invited without any further consultation outside—on a subject for which genetics and ecological science were extremely relevant. In its first instance, the committee ended up with no geneticist and no really front-rank ecologist. As this was perceived, six people were added ex post facto, which, going back to my first point, made a committee of 26 people. I thank my stars that I was not part of it.
	My third point is how you spell out this consultation. While I very much respect what my noble friend—my genuine friend—Lord Rees said, I do not think that it is a very good idea to mention any one institution, partly because that would not be totally appropriate even if we were to think of one institution. In this context, the science does not mean only physical and biological science; it also involves, importantly, and arguably more importantly, social and economic science. I derive a good deal of narcissistic satisfaction from the fact that during my presidency we somewhat enlarged the ambit of the Royal Society to begin to include the harder edges of social and economic science, but we still could not claim to be representative of it.
	Beyond that, I am reluctant to see the society included like this. Although you could get round it by putting the Royal Academy of Engineering alongside us, whenever you take such action you are drawing a line that has a lot of dissatisfied people on the other side. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in whom I have faith in these matters, to take this under advisement and think about how most wisely to incorporate in the relevant place in the Bill a firm injunction for outside consultation. In the first instance of putting this together and tentatively beginning to think about it, even as the Bill goes forward, competent head-hunters have been consulting widely with the Royal Society and private individuals. We have made a good start, but let us make sure that it continues by appropriately and non-institutionally specifically spelling it out in the Bill.

Lord Avebury: The noble Lords, Lord Rees and Lord May, mentioned engineering as a subject which has not yet been raised as necessary to the expertise of the Committee on Climate Change, and it is a serious omission. Whether it can be corrected by incorporating a requirement for the national authorities to seek advice from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, or whether it would mean, as the noble Lord, Lord May, just said, that you then would have a queue of other very distinguished bodies asking why they were not included, I am not competent to say. But I urge the Minister that, if anything is written in the Bill about consultation, it should certainly be broader than the Royal Society and should include the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I think that we are all suffering from the same problem; namely, that we know the Government's conclusions but we do not know what their thinking was or how they arrived at or derived their conclusions. None the less, the discussion is extremely interesting. Like the noble Lord, Lord May, I think that, on the whole, small committees are good when they are executive committees. When they are advisory committees, you want the widest possible circle of advice that it is reasonable to obtain. On balance, I am very much in favour of my noble friend Lord Taylor's suggestion that the committee might be slightly larger, but, as I say, we do not know with any certainty what the Government's thinking was. The important bit will come when the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has to justify what is written in the Bill.
	It is, as I say, difficult to know how the Government arrived at their conclusions. We do not know their thinking. I agree that to nominate just one body to have the right to nomination, however erudite and widely spread its membership might be, would probably be wrong. I like the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, if I understood him correctly, that he felt that the appropriate role for the Royal Society is to advise the Government in this field. But, again, we do not know whether that was the Government's thinking. Until we get those answers, we are all going to be wandering round with our own opinions. On that happy thought I am going to sit down.

Lord Oxburgh: I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Academy of Engineering. I have two minor points and one more substantive one. The first minor one relates to the size of this committee. I would give some support to the idea of having a slightly larger committee. This committee is going to have to have quite a lot of close, tight argument and discussion. On the other hand, it is going to have to cover a fairly wide area. I would have thought that both of those objectives could be met with the committee going up to about 12 members. I do not feel very strongly about this, but I think that there is scope for such a solution.
	The second minor point is that I am slightly alarmed at the thought of a Commons committee scrutinising the composition of this committee. It is awfully reminiscent of confirmatory hearings, of which there is experience in the North American context, and there would be scope for some politicisation. Although it probably would not happen, the possibility is there.
	My main point relates to the proposal, which has already been raised, for nomination by the Royal Society or other bodies. As soon as you have multiple bodies making nominations, you no longer have a team. This committee has to work as a team. If you have different bodies nominating different members, they will come to represent constituencies. That is not the way to establish a coherent body that covers the bases. It is extremely important that nominations are made as part of one coherent operation, with all the advice suggested by my noble friends and others Members of the Committee, but it will have to be a coherent whole to create a working team.

Lord Puttnam: In responding to the issue of the size of the climate change committee, will the Minister indicate whether he sees measures of adaptation as part of the committee's remit? If so, the size of the committee as currently proposed is almost certainly inadequate. I would suggest that the adaptation issues are of a different order, requiring different skills and different expertise, and that they are dealt with elsewhere, but it would help the Committee considerably to know whether the Minister thinks that that falls within the committee's remit.

The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has put his finger on the point that I wanted to make, that we cannot settle on numbers until we know what the functions of the committee will be. He mentioned adaptation, and Amendment No. 129 will require the inclusion of another member of the committee. However, my feelings are more in line with those of the noble Lord, Lord May—the smaller the better. If you have two lawyers in a room you will get three arguments. I have no doubt that if you have nine scientists in a room you will have many fewer arguments than you would if you had 12 in a room together.
	I come back, however, to the practicalities of some of the amendments before us. My question relates to what happens if the national authorities do not agree. At the moment they are due to appoint the chair. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, advises the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that the ideal man to chair the committee happens to be very pro-nuclear power, what is Mr Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, going to say to that? Will there be endless arguments? Given that, I support my noble friend Lord Taylor in saying that the chair must be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, where my noble friend may have missed a point is that if the national authorities are going to appoint the deputy chair, surely the Secretary of State ought to appoint that person as well.
	I go back to my main point. Can the Minister tell us what is to happen in the case of a disagreement between the national authorities? Further, on Amendment No. 126, tabled by my noble friend, why should it be a Select Committee of the House of Commons? If it is necessary at all for there to be any parliamentary scrutiny, it should be undertaken by both Houses. However, I would prefer for there to be none.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I assume that I am the only Member on these Benches present who is not a Fellow of the Royal Society. I rise to commend the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Later we will debate in a series of amendments what is to happen about adaptation as opposed to mitigation and how that is to be scrutinised independently. Although I certainly would not favour the climate change committee being given that role because I think that it should be dealt with by a small, focused and specialist committee, nevertheless if adaptation were to be given to the climate change committee in order to ensure that that important and growing element of climate change is given proper prominence, that would have an impact on the membership of the committee.

Lord Turnbull: I stand with those who favour a larger committee. The Monetary Policy Committee has nine members and deals with one branch of one science. Given the breadth of scientific, social and economic issues that this committee will have to deal with, if the MPC requires nine members, it is almost certain that the climate change committee needs more.
	I am puzzled that the original text of the Bill uses the word "appoint" while the amendment we are discussing uses "nominate". That word usually means that someone puts forward a name and someone else decides it. I do not think that "nominate" is the right word if it is intended that someone else should have the right of choice. Either we should go back to the word "appoint" or not at all.
	A further argument that has been put forward is that we are in such a hurry that if we believe in the principle of parliamentary approval of appointments—I am not sure that I necessarily do—at least the chair of the committee should be covered by it. We are engaging here in a 50-year endeavour and I do not believe that it can honestly be said that the few weeks which will be taken up by the approval process is material relative to the gain we believe that we will get from it.
	Lastly, we have to remember that this is not all the work of these eight or 12 people. The committee will have a staff with a chief executive and will require experts in many disciplines—indeed, broken down into the subsidiary parts of those disciplines. The actual expertise of the body will not reside solely in its members, commissioners or whatever we like to call them.

Lord Rooker: I have counted some 14 speakers who have contributed to this debate, many of whom have made very valuable points. I should declare an interest in that while I am not a scientist, I am probably the most out of date engineer in the House. I still pay my subs, but it is a long while since I last practised. However, I still have that attachment. Some of the points that have been made jump ahead of where we are. In particular, the comments of my noble friend Lord Puttnam apply to Amendment No. 158. However, by and large we are talking about the numbers to make up the committee. I am not going to go to the stake on the size of the committee, but I shall stick to the line today.
	It is a fair point. We want a smallish committee rather than a grand forum, and that is probably the thinking here. The thrust of the amendments, as has been said, is to increase the size of the committee. We are dealing with a couple of things here. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out that this group of amendments takes away the input of the devolved Administrations into the appointment of the committee's chair. The amendments also have an aim that relates to the nominations from the Royal Society. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours pointed out that the relevant Select Committee at the other end is not clearly available to everybody, whatever subject you look at, simply because the committee structure down there has changed over the years.
	The practical effect of the amendments is to create a larger committee of between seven and 12—or eight and 13, as the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, pointed out—who have been approved or appointed. The intention of the amendments is to create a larger body with a focus on climate change, to reduce the discretion of national authorities and the role of the devolved Administrations, and to bring further transparency and rigour to the process by giving Parliament a role in approving the appointments. I am not in a position to discuss hearings for confirmation of roles. There is a role for that and I have my own views on it. They are not matters covered by the present arrangements in another place, although from time to time I hear ministerial colleagues complaining that people have been appointed to roles but are completely incapable of answering both to the media and concerned experts. Going before a committee of MPs might sometimes sort out whether someone can explain what they are doing. Half the battle is not the doing but the explaining and being accountable. That is an issue.
	The Committee on Climate Change will be the first body of its kind to bring together different areas of expertise among its members, from the fields of climate science and policy, economics and, of course, business competitiveness and financial management. As I mentioned in a previous debate, we are talking about effects that run into tens of billions of pounds. The areas of expertise broadly mirror the matters that the committee is required to take into account in its advice on the level of the carbon budget, listed in Clause 10 of the Bill. The committee will have a chairperson and between five and eight members appointed jointly by the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department. It will be a UK-wide body. There are plenty of examples I could give of UK-wide bodies like this that are now appointed with the devolved Administrations, where we have discussions and find perfectly acceptable solutions. I am unaware of major clashes. I have not come armed with a list, but the system of collective appointments has worked extremely well since devolution came onto the scene.
	By definition, the approach in the Bill has been agreed with the devolved Administrations. I put this on the record. We certainly cannot accept Amendment No. 125, which would remove the devolved Administrations' input from the process of appointing the chair. On Amendments Nos. 121 and 131, on the size of the committee, we think five to eight, plus the chair, strikes a balance between ensuring that the committee retains a good mix of relevant expertise and creating a committee that is focused and dynamic.
	Should the committee, once established, consider it necessary to increase its size, we have made provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend the number of committee members, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, recognising that the volume and type of work given to the committee is bound to vary over time. This is a long-term process and we do not see why the number of members needs to be changed now before the committee has even been appointed—I shall come on to that in a moment—or begun its work. Nor do we see why the flexibility to vary the size of the committee as its workload fluctuates over time needs to be removed from the Bill. I believe that Amendment No. 131 would take away the flexibility to change the size of the committee, so it must be a probing amendment by definition. The relevant subsection is in the Bill for that very reason—to take account of the committee's workload over time.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127, the committee's chair and members are being appointed in a fair and open recruitment process which is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This is fully in line with the Nolan principles. I regret that I have nothing further to report today. For what it is worth, I have advised that I will be in an extremely difficult position if there is no designated shadow chair by Report. Clearly, that is the first appointment because the chair would appoint the members. That is the normal process which works extremely well in a range of other bodies in Whitehall. I do not know when Report will be but we are keen to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible so that there is no undue delay. However, the appointment is being overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Advertisements were placed and an executive search agency was also used. However, I do not know when the appointment will be made. I suppose that it will be made shortly. I hope that it occurs as soon as possible and before Report but I cannot guarantee that. I am not saying that it will occur then because I have no evidence that that will be the case. However, as I say, I will be in an extremely difficult position if it does not occur by Report.
	The appointments are being conducted in an independent and transparent manner. That is the main message. They are not being decided by Ministers behind closed doors. As the Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, highlights, public appointments that are subject to oversight by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should not usually be subject to additional scrutiny by a Select Committee. As an expert independent body, the committee will play a vital role in advising government on how to manage carbon over time and across the economy but it is not just a question of science, as I think everyone accepts. The science is fundamental and clearly this aspect of expertise must be reflected on the committee but that does not mean to say that the committee should be composed predominantly of scientists. As I said, it will look at a broad range of issues and get the right balance of scientific, economic, business and, indeed cultural issues. So we are not convinced that asking a scientific body—and one as esteemed as the Royal Society would be an obvious one if that were the route to be taken—to nominate half the members would be the best approach.
	When the Committee on Climate Change is up and working, its members and secretariat will be bound to consult all kinds of outside bodies with the necessary expertise, including, I imagine, both corporate and individual members of the Royal Society, engineering institutions, and business and finance. It is not a case of the committee, whatever the number of its members—which may be small, as we suggest—doing everything itself. It will have to touch base with a range of expertise across society. I am absolutely certain that the bodies that have been mentioned with regard to nominating members will be involved in this work. However, we cannot accept the amendments on nominating members. As I set out on the previous occasion, Clause 27 already requires the committee to set out reasons for its advice on carbon budgets so it will be clear how it has balanced climate science with the other issues which it has to take into account.
	I repeat that the process of appointment is being regulated and monitored by the commissioner. There are some parliamentary Questions that I understand will be answered on Wednesday. That is the advice I have been given. I have not seen them or the draft Answers yet but I understand that I will be in a position to answer them on behalf of my ministerial colleagues on Wednesday.
	As for the devolved Administrations, in some ways—I am thinking aloud here—the noble Lord gives an example about how the chairman might be pro or anti something. The fact is that this is an advisory committee, not an executive one. The example I gave in my previous speech was on the nuclear power issue. The Government have set out their position clearly. The climate change committee is an advisory committee, not an executive one. What the First Minister in Scotland has a view on should not figure. It will be the merit of the science and the quality of the individual because the Government are taking the overall decision, as was clearly indicated by the White Paper last week. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no issues where we have not been able to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations over the appointment of people to bodies. That was set down in the protocols at the time of devolution and it is working quite satisfactorily.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the point made by the noble Lord in referring to what my noble friend Lord Caithness said, Paragraph 1(3)(d) of Schedule 1 states that the committee should have experience in or knowledge of,
	"differences in circumstances between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the capacity of national authorities to take action in relation to climate change".
	Does that mean the political possibility of doing so? I think that is what my noble friend was talking about. I cannot quite see what sort of person on the committee would be capable of helping it to implement Paragraph 1(3)(d). Is it about the geography of different parts of the United Kingdom and their climatic conditions, or does it include the art of what is politically possible to implement? I do not quite understand what Paragraph 1(3)(d) of Schedule 1 means. As politics in Scotland are diverging somewhat, I think that should be taken into account.

Lord Rooker: I do not have a detailed answer to the noble Baroness's question but, because of the way it is written, one could make the same argument if one listed Northern Ireland. You cannot take any cognisance of the view and capacity of, for example, Northern Ireland ignoring the fact of the island of Ireland. It is a question of business and practicalities and goes way beyond the science. I am not saying that one person would encompass all that.
	It is desirable to have as much of what is in sub-paragraph (3) as possible. The idea of having nominees is not necessarily the issue: the devolved Administrations need to have the comfort that this is not a London-centric or England-centric committee. One has to go wider than that. In other policy areas, we are having no difficulty with the devolved Administrations in making sure that their views and the differences within the United Kingdom, as indicated by England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are taken into account.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for way in which he has covered all the ground in the debate. It is clear to us all that the amendments may have their imperfections. Nonetheless, they were directed at making sure that we have the right and best people to perform the tasks of this committee. Indeed, when one thinks of the quality of the contributions that noble Lords have made, what a fine Committee on Climate Change we would have if we could see many such individuals involved with the deliberations of the body. From engineer to president of the Royal Society, the House contains a distinguished range of talent that it can draw on to consider these matters.
	In the circumstances, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment, but I say all strength to the Minister's elbow in putting on pressure to get the name of the chairman of the shadow committee into the public domain. It will reassure many people if it is clear that the right sorts of people are being appointed to do this task. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: moved Amendment No. 124A:
	Schedule 1, page 32, line 8, leave out "eight" and insert "nine"

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: In seeking to introduce to the scope of the Committee on Climate Change the dimension of international development, the amendments seek to balance the other important interests on the committee with the needs of those who are already being affected in their millions by the impact of climate change.
	The Government already accept an obligation to help poor countries through the work of DfID. The amendment would ensure that that responsibility is integrated into the committee and into the Government's overall strategy on climate change. A few months ago, I was in America meeting political and religious leaders about the environment. The faith communities have a major role in changing hearts and minds about the threat of global warming in America, Europe and throughout the world. In Orlando and Washington, I was involved in leading seminars with evangelical leaders, imams and rabbis, whose increasing concern is focused on the impact of climate change on the poor of the world. I also had meetings on Capitol Hill, facilitated by the British Embassy, with officials in Speaker Pelosi's office and with the staff of Senator Boxer, who are closely involved in the climate security Act that is going through Congress.
	In all those meetings, I observed huge interest in and great appreciation of the UK Government's leadership, especially in their initiative in introducing this Bill. I say that in the hope that the Minister will recognise that my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and I tabled the amendments to strengthen the Bill.
	We all know, and the point has been well made during our debates, that this crisis affects the whole planet, and it cannot be dealt with by one nation alone. That has been the position adopted by the Government in both the Kyoto Protocol, where they took such an effective lead, and in the Bali negotiations. The amendments seek to bring to the heart of the committee's work this international dimension. To do so would strengthen Her Majesty's Government's standing on the international stage and give an example to other nations that we cannot and must not take decisions without regard to international negotiations and international development.
	There were many impressive speeches on Second Reading. I regret that, because of duties in Liverpool, I had to withdraw from the debate at the last moment, but I heard the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Noble Lords will remember that he made an impassioned plea that this was at heart a moral issue. He compared the Bill with the legislation to abolish the slave trade. One of the turning points in the parliamentary mood that helped to secure the votes to pass the legislation was when the parliamentary commission heard evidence from a former slave ship commander, John Newton. That brought not just the facts but the experience of slave trading to the heart of the legislative process. The amendments seek to bring the experience of climate change to the heart of the Government's decision making. I know that the Committee on Climate Change will include an expert on climate science and that person will certainly bring facts, but someone with expertise in international development would bring the human experience of the impact of climate change.
	The tragedy of the present situation of global warming is that the poor in developing countries are already feeling and suffering disastrously from the effects of climate change. They do not, however, have the power to do anything about it. Those of us who possess the power do not as yet feel the full impact of our actions and have therefore been slow to bring in the necessary measures. These amendments and the proposal to have on the Committee on Climate Change someone with expertise in international development will ensure that the voice of the poor and the plight of the powerless are heard and seen at the heart of Government and, most importantly, will underline the urgency which is still lacking in the popular mood.
	The Bill requires the committee to,
	"provide advice, analysis and information in connection with climate change generally".
	It is difficult to see how the committee can fulfil this brief adequately without reference to what is happening in other parts of the world. I hope the Minister will view these amendments as a friendly and constructive contribution to the Bill and to the Government's leadership on climate change nationally and internationally. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of the right reverend Prelate but I think he ought to consider the wording of paragraph 3, which states that the authorities,
	"must have regard to the desirability"
	of experience of the factors listed in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to (i). His point does not exclude the Government from considering the experience of people involved internationally, but we are primarily considering domestic legislation. While there is an obligation on the Government to consider, as I have said, what is listed in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to (i), it does not preclude the Government from investing their experience in selecting somebody with wide international experience as well.
	I fail to understand, therefore, why it is necessary to include this particular provision, much as I have sympathy with the points which have been raised.

Baroness Northover: I support the amendments. I am glad that they have been put down and also separated out, because this is a useful reminder of what the Bill is all about. As so many speakers made clear at Second Reading, and as the right reverend Prelate has said so effectively, climate change is likely to have the greatest impact on developing countries and is already doing so. Given that the poorest people are less able to withstand the additional pressures and shocks of climate change, they are at the forefront of the impact of climate change. It is therefore extremely important that what we do in Britain is also assessed on its impact on developing countries in terms of whether we are doing enough and what we are doing.
	To address what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has just said, there has been some discussion in previous sittings about climate credits. These could be adopted as a way forward; they might benefit the United Kingdom in tackling climate change and meeting its targets but they might not have a beneficial effect on developing countries. Therefore, we need to look at this in an international context. Climate credits could be positive or negative in developing countries—there are examples of both. We need that expertise in international development on the climate change committee to take this into consideration and to be sure that we are doing that.
	As I mentioned in the debate on the previous amendment, it looks to me as if this committee is rather weighted towards business, economics and industry. I worry about the depth and nature of its expertise; we addressed a number of those issues just now. To be honest I did not feel that that was totally addressed by the Minister in his concluding remarks. International development is also an area which the committee must address, and we need to see that represented on it. I therefore argue that a more balanced composition should include expertise on the impact of climate change in the developing world.
	We will later come to the subject of adaptation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in the previous group. That is obviously extremely important and must be rapidly developed, particularly for the benefit of developing countries. Again, there are opportunities for us here in the United Kingdom, and the committee's expertise must include that as well. That should benefit developing countries.
	Having a committee member knowledgeable about climate impacts in developing countries might also help to provide a strong international perspective, which is clearly critical in what the committee is doing, to ensure that purely domestic economic factors do not dominate what the committee decides. It is of course not sufficient to suggest that climate scientists on the committee will themselves adequately address and safeguard this area; it would obviously depend entirely on the expertise and interest of those particular climate scientists and whether they had in interest in international development. The Bill is about a global problem. The climate change committee should undoubtedly have expertise in this area among its members.

Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment from a specific perspective. I am fortunate in that, in my day job as president of UNICEF in the UK, I have the chance to travel and see the impact of things which are sometimes ill reported or not reported at all, as they affect young people in remote areas of the world. We decided last September to commission a report from Dr Catherine Cameron—one of the advisers to the noble Lord, Lord Stern, in the preparation of his report—on the likely impact of climate change on children in the developing world. It will be published in the spring and I suspect that it will make fairly grim reading.
	I know that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davies did not mean that this issue was peripheral when he referred to it as domestic legislation. It is important to remember that those opposing William Wilberforce's Bill did so on the basis that domestic legislation was being used to impact on the lives of people who were not directly affected and should not be the object of domestic legislation. Not quite in this Chamber, but certainly in this building, the case was made over and over again: why on earth was parliamentary time being taken up for the benefit of those who were not UK nationals and not directly affected by UK legislation?

Lord Clinton-Davis: May I—

Lord Puttnam: May I make my point? I know that that is not what my noble friend was referring to, but it cannot be said often enough that this is an international Bill. We are taking an international stance. We in UNICEF UK have taken a world lead in looking scientifically at the likely impact of climate change on young children around the world. I am enormously proud of that, and I hope the Committee is as well.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Does not my noble friend realise that the Government have a duty to do certain things, but that that does not preclude them from considering, where relevant, this particular issue?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: To bring the discussion right down to the ground, would the committee have it in its power to discuss whether we should be growing more food here rather than bringing it from abroad? The noble Lord made the significant point that aeroplanes should not be included in the Bill. Whether green beans should be flown every day from Kenya or whether we should grow more beans here is a serious question. We do not know what the implications of, say, blueberries from Argentina are for the environment. Yet one has only to go into a supermarket and look around the counters to see where things are being imported from to realise that this is a huge issue. It is an international issue; the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who made a very inspiring speech about it, is right.
	Would the committee have it in its power to talk about that? Should that be included in the scope of the amendment or does it come under the social impact policy?

Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, had made an interesting and useful point on whether the committee has the power to consider the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred to—that is, whether the activities that we undertake in the United Kingdom have a harmful effect on children overseas. If the committee is not empowered to consider that, should it be added to its functions? My view—I hope to convince the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, of this—is that the expertise mentioned in the amendment ought to be available to the committee to perform its functions, irrespective of whether we widen them in the sense that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, would advocate.
	I refer Members of the Committee to the speech made by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, in introducing last year's Budget. He said that Britain would lead the way in helping developing countries address climate change and announced a £50 million scheme to prevent the destruction of the largest rainforest in the world, in the Congo basin of central Africa.
	"Led by Nobel prize winner Wangari Maathai, it will help 50 million people...whose livelihoods are now under threat".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/07; col. 821.]
	In the same speech, Mr Brown mentioned the Iwokrama project, which is an area of 360,000 hectares dedicated by the people of Guyana as a research station for the benefit of humanity as a whole, to be administered by the Commonwealth. This is a good example of the need for the committee to have knowledge and experience of international development. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said, its duties are primarily concerned with emissions in the United Kingdom, it has a duty under Clause 27(1)(c)(i) to advise the Secretary of State on the contribution towards meeting the carbon budget that should be made by trading schemes. Although initially only the ETS is set for implementation, others which may be developed in the future will cover activities by the United Kingdom in developing countries. There are activities under the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism under which, according to the Government's helpful briefing paper 5, $7 billion was invested in 2006 with another $25 billion in the pipeline.
	It might be argued that, so far, rainforest preservation is not covered by the clean development mechanism, but in his reply to me last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that the Government's priority was to reduce emissions from deforestation and that, to achieve this, agreement had been reached at Bali for a framework of positive incentives. Deforestation accounts for between 18 and 25 per cent of global carbon emissions according to the Global Canopy Programme, and that has to be compared with the 3 per cent for which aviation is responsible, on which Members of the Committee rightly focused attention last Wednesday.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also mentioned the Government's review of financing mechanisms to reduce deforestation, which was announced last September and is expected to be fed into the next UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009. Meanwhile, under Clause 30(2)(a), the committee might be asked to advise on the limits that are proposed to be set by any trading scheme that may be proposed involving measures to prevent deforestation.
	In another answer, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that we were discussing a proposal by President Jagdeo, in a speech to the Commonwealth finance Ministers in Georgetown last October, to make Guyana's rainforests a carbon sink for the rest of the world. Mr Jagdeo reminded his audience that the Stern review had described avoiding deforestation as a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the Brazilian environment Minister, Marina Silva, has suggested extending the Jagdeo plan to include the Brazilian and Venezuelan parts of the Amazon rainforest, which is an excellent idea from several points of view. One is that Brazil is the fourth largest contributor to global warming because of the way in which it is now burning up its forests and if Venezuela could be persuaded to join the venture, it could play a role in facilitating the UN Secretary-General's good offices process for addressing the dispute between Guyana and Venezuela on their joint boundary dispute.
	An international Amazon carbon sink scheme, on the lines of what is already happening with British help in the Congo basin, could be financed by the rest of the world, along with the Essequibo Peace Park, under which it is suggested that a band of forest on both sides of the Venezuela-Guyana border should be reserved for the indigenous peoples who straddle the frontier. The maintenance of peace between the two neighbours, and the protection of indigenous people, could thus be added to the reduction of global warming as benefits to be achieved by halting deforestation in the Amazon basin.
	Considering that every hectare lost increases the height of the carbon mountain that the world has to climb, it is alarming that we have to wait until the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009 before a comprehensive mechanism is launched. Surely it would be possible to look at interim solutions that would match regional needs and put together international consortia to finance viable proposals, as we do, for instance, in the case of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which is financed by contributions from member states.
	The Norwegians have announced funding of $500 million a year for the next five years on forest projects and if all other states made proportionate contributions, the total would be more than enough to cover the $20 billion a year that Stern estimates is needed to halt deforestation altogether. We talk about $20 per hectare per year, as compared with $300 per hectare per year spent by the European Union on the conservation services provided by Europe's farmers. So, the problem should not be finding the money but determining the basis on which it is to be allocated. If the committee had that necessary expertise, it could provide advice on President Jagdeo's scheme or, better still, on the expanded Brazilian version. I strongly support the amendment. I believe that it has great practical value in the Bill as it stands and would have even greater value if we were to expand the functions of the committee, as has been suggested.

The Lord Bishop of London: I can well understand the reluctance to expand the remit of this committee so far that it becomes the conscience of the nation and embraces the whole of this very complex subject. Following the noble Lord, it seems quite clear that, even as it stands, the very particular duties assigned to the committee can hardly be undertaken without paying particular attention to this dimension of analysis and ensuring that the analysis is really sound.
	The noble Baroness talked about food. Of course, food security is greatly affected by climate change. The Centre for Global Development has done some important research on the impact of climate change on declining agricultural productivity in a range of developing countries. This is obviously a vital part of any analysis of the weight of the dangers we face. There is the question of the analysis and its credibility. There is also the question of the very particular role that the committee is being given. For example, it is charged with not putting undue burdens on UK business or unduly reducing UK competitiveness. That is a proper role and object for the committee, but who will make the case for developing countries? Who will make sure that their safety is not risked by an inadequate reduction? There has to be a capacity to put that case strongly within the committee as it comes to its advice.
	I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the duties of the committee and I believe that even as it stands now the amendment is entirely consonant with what we have heard this afternoon about its role. I hope that as we all try to work to ensure that the UK has some international leadership role in this matter, we will strengthen that by being specific. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is entirely right and that it is the Government's settled intention to build this dimension into the membership of the committee. It would be good to have an indication from the Minister about whether that is the intention because this amendment would strengthen one of the purposes of the Bill, which is to confirm the international leadership of the UK.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Under Clause 2(2) the Secretary of State has to have cognisance of any,
	"significant developments in ... scientific knowledge about climate change, or ... European or international law or policy".
	So it is irrelevant not to consider these issues. It is imperative that they should be included in this provision.

The Lord Bishop of London: I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is imperative that that dimension is considered. Having a look at,
	"the desirability of securing that the Committee (taken as a whole) has experience in or knowledge of the following"
	it is clear that the international dimension is not spelled out in that list. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is very desirable that it should be. Therefore, by moving this amendment, we are looking for some assurance that it will be specifically in the membership of the committee.

Lord Teverson: The Liberal Democrat Front Bench strongly supports the amendment. I particularly agree with my noble friend Lady Northover that from a practical point of view, if we have carbon budgets and the buying of credits—which involve joint implementation and the clean development mechanism in Kyoto—which are focused on the developing world and developing economies, we need a dimension in the committee that fully understands that as well as the broader aspects of humanity that are clearly also fundamental.

The Earl of Selborne: All Members of the Committee agree that we cannot look at the UK's management of its climate change policies without looking at the world as a whole. The questions are to what extent that has to be put in the Bill and to what extent this amendment is relevant. I support the amendment for reasons we have heard many times. I should declare an interest as the chair of the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which is generously funded by Defra, bearing in mind the contribution that British science, not just at Kew, but at many other institutes, can make in helping to protect biodiverse systems and to develop mediation towards climate change.
	A lot of the work funded at institutions such as Kew recognises the seamless nature of the science in addressing these climate change issues. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about the work in the Congo basin; that is not Kew work, but Kew is working in Borneo, Madagascar and many other countries. I find it inconceivable that the Committee on Climate Change would not be well plugged into this science. It may come under the category of environmental or climate change science, but there must be knowledge of how relevant these natural carbon sinks are, to what extent they are threatened and to what extent that therefore impacts on procurement or land management policies in this country, and much else besides.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, deserves credit for supporting Kew and other institutes in developing this international portfolio. He will recognise that it is inconceivable that the committee would not be aware of this work going on around the world and how we lock into it. I accept, with the right reverend Prelate, that as it is inconceivable that the committee would not be aware and have a degree of expertise in this, it should not also be included in the Bill. That is why I support the amendment.

Lord Rooker: Sometimes one starts to say "it goes without saying" and it is then best to say it, just to get the thing clear. Noble Lords are right about the work of Kew. From my limited knowledge, it would be inconceivable that the climate change committee and its secretariat were not aware of the international work that goes on and is led from Kew. I honestly do not think that there is a great deal of difference between us on this. I will briefly set out comments on the amendment by explaining Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1. It gives a useful context, because there are further amendments to the paragraph in the next group. Then I can avoid having to make the same speech.
	Paragraph 1(3) gives a list, in alphabetical order, of the areas of expertise and knowledge that are desirable in the overall composition of the committee. As will be seen, the areas of expertise broadly mirror the matters set out in Clause 10, which the committee is required to take into account in its advice on the level of the carbon budget. The list of expertise is not meant to be exhaustive. It is the make-up of the committee "as a whole", as it says in the Bill. It is the expertise and experience that are provided collectively that are important. The list of expertise is drafted broadly to provide scope for the national authorities and the chair to appoint members with specific expertise as the committee's work demands. The list does not prevent national authorities appointing members with expertise in areas that are not on the list, if they and the chair believe that that will help the committee's work. Specifically, Amendment No. 130A seeks to add international development to the list of expertise. I and my ministerial colleagues are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. I am conscious that while Clause 10, to which I have referred, requires the committee to take European and international circumstances into account, expertise of an international nature is not currently present in the list of desirable expertise for the committee, as set out in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.
	It is worth reminding the Committee that Clause 10(2)(h) makes it clear that the climate change committee can look at any issue it wants to. It is absolutely clear. It is there in the Bill. It is not left as us taking it as read that that is what it will do. It is written down. I humbly say to the Committee that it is not strictly necessary to be detailed on that.
	It is vital that our approach to tackling climate change is considered in the context of the wider international effort and impacts. It must take the widest possible perspective. For instance, the committee will need to consider international developments in climate science and technology, as well as emission reduction commitments made by other countries and the European Union. All those issues will be relevant to the committee's work. Therefore, we are not convinced that there is a compelling case for a specific reference to international development, as proposed in the amendment, although we understand what that means.
	We would like to consider the amendment further to see whether we can make it explicit that the committee must have expertise in the international context. As I said, there is a reference to it in Clause 10, which does not carry over to Schedule 1. I am not saying that that should be the exact wording, but the reference is not there. I say that not in the context of international development, but it is quite important to get the message into Schedule 1. That is the message from this debate.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Is it not open to the committee to consider evidence from relevant authorities?

Lord Rooker: Yes, as I said to my noble friend, there will be no restriction, no no-go areas for the Climate Change Committee. The Bill makes that quite clear. But we need to consider the composition of the committee as a whole; let us not compartmentalise individuals. International relations are referred to in Clause 10—which says that the committee can look at anything that it wants—but that is not carried over to Schedule 1. We will look to see whether we can improve the wording of that between now and the next stage.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I am greatly encouraged by the Minister's response. It is very good to hear him say that there is not much difference between us. We are really encouraged that those points will be taken on board by the next stage. The debate has been important for recognising that domestic legislation has an international impact. We would like to see that explicit, not just implicit. We are greatly encouraged by the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 128:
	Schedule 1, page 32, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) environmental science;"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Sub-paragraph (3) outlines the different areas that must be taken into account when appointing members to the committee. It is extensive and, by and large, we feel that it is a good list. However, there seems to be one rather important gap: the environment. The aim of the Bill is to stop climate change. Surely the aim of stopping climate change is to protect the environment and the inhabitants of it. Thus, we feel that it is very important for the nomination process to consider environmental science, which we know is a very broad term, when selecting members.
	Because the efforts to reduce carbon emissions will be immensely wide ranging, it will be important to have expertise on the committee able to give advice and make decisions on the impact of climate change and our efforts to stop it on the environment. As the list of different kinds of experience already includes many of the areas on which proposals on climate change and its reduction will have an impact, we expect that adding this extra one should not create too much controversy. If the Minister feels that the committee should not seek to find someone with experience in environmental science, I should be very interested to know his reasons why.
	Amendment No. 130 in this group, which is tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, seeks a similar goal, but it is far more prescriptive. We certainly support the spirit of that amendment, but we feel that having a more open term would give those involved in the nominations procedure more flexibility. Is the Minister willing to comment on the degree of flexibility on appointments that he hopes will exist in the nomination procedure? Is the idea behind the clause to provide rather strict guidelines on appointments, such as that only people who are genuinely qualified for the specific tasks are nominated, or is it more flexible? I note the comments made by the Minister in response to previous amendments this afternoon. Which does he think the more desirable? I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: I speak especially to Amendments Nos. 129 and 130. I absolutely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. How can we have this list here without the environment, however described, included? We are being completely consistent here. The Minister mentioned Clause 10, which has its own list. We tabled an amendment to Clause 10 to the effect that the committee had to consider the area of conservation of biodiversity, organisms, ecological systems, and so on. At that point, I remember that he admonished me, saying that it was already an obligation on all government departments and public bodies to consider that. If that is included in the list of attributes of the people on the committee, I am sure that it will help to ensure that any Secretary of State or future Minister is not subject to judicial review and will protect that area.
	On transport, I have a background in the transport industry myself. I am very aware that it is easy to add more and more people to the list. That is a risk, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. The UK's emissions are, very roughly, one-third from households, one-third from industry and one-third from transport. We also had a long discussion about aviation and shipping in their international as well as their national context. Although we might disagree about when the provision comes in and how it is counted, as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, everyone was on board, including the Government, in making sure that it appeared at some point. It is therefore important that there is some expertise in that broad area of transport, whether passenger or freight, as well. The need to have that expertise on the committee as well deserves careful consideration.

The Earl of Selborne: I just add a very short contribution. Of the two amendments, Amendment No. 128 and Amendment No. 130, I greatly prefer Amendment No. 128, because it is a catch-all. I must agree that not having environmental science expertise is inconceivable, as I said in debate on an earlier amendment. At one stage, I wondered whether one should try to include expertise in land management on the committee. I recognise that that would sound too much like special pleading—as a land manager myself, I would have to declare all sorts of interests. I would be quite content, providing that there is expertise in environmental science, that that would include all such expertise and include under its umbrella land management.
	This is an important area. We will come back in the adaptation measures to how we manage our carbon sinks and our forest cover in this country, let alone overseas, and how we manage our soils. Expertise in environmental science clearly needs a mention.

Lord Krebs: Perhaps I may make a slightly technical point as someone who might be described as an environmental scientist by profession. The difficulty with Amendment No. 128 is that for many professional scientists, climate science would be an example of environmental science. Therefore, there may be a taxonomy error in thinking of environmental science as a separate category. If one were going to add to the expertise in the spirit of the points made by others in this debate, I suggest that the term should be "ecology and conservation", because those are the areas of expertise currently missing from the proposed committee.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Whatever may have been said about airlines and shipping in previous debates, nothing in the Bill as I understand it precludes people with experience of those trades being included in the committee we are considering. Such people would inevitably be included, and I want to hear what my noble friend says on that.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the Committee for not having been present at the beginning of the debate on Amendment No. 123. I therefore do not know whether what I am about to say has already been covered, although from what I heard of that debate later it probably was not. I apologise also for not putting down a probing amendment on the subject that I am going to raise, and I hope that I am not covering old ground.
	I am raising effectively the issue from that Sherlock Holmes episode, in the Silver Blaze case, of the dog that barked in the night. The significance of the dog was of course that it did not bark. The various listed paragraphs being debated, to which these amendments seek to add, cover different elements of experience, whether in industry, science or activity. They are comprehensive, and I have listened to the efforts to add to them.
	Nearly 50 years ago, I was the first head-hunter in the United Kingdom, and in effect I can be held responsible, or guilty, for creating that profession in this land. When talking to our clients, one thing that preoccupied us from the beginning was the specifications that would underlie the purpose that the organisation sought to achieve by an appointment. The Minister may well tell me that it is not relevant to this list—although I would welcome knowing where else it might appear in the Bill, if it is not—but there is also the issue of being a change agent. Great organisations may require change from time to time: I cite as random examples the BBC or the National Health Service. On the whole, you would be making a mistake to embark on achieving those changes without having somebody who had previously been responsible for managing change involved in the process.
	I realise the difference between the advisory role here and that of the Government, and it may well be that the Government feel that they have within their ranks that sort of person. I am not asking the Minister to repeat all that he said on the previous amendments about the rationale of the list. I also recognise that nothing prevents this particular quality from being added without it being mentioned in the Bill. However, does the Minister consider that experience, in human terms, to be desirable or even necessary? I would welcome knowing that. Secondly, how does the Minister think that it will work its way into the fabric of the process if we have nothing specific about it in the Bill?

Lord Rooker: I will take advice on the last point, but I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It may be that change managers are involved in the practical effects of implementing advice from the Committee on Climate Change. I do not know that, but what I am about to say might satisfy the noble Lord. I want to make it clear that what is written in the Bill should, and must, be read in the broadest possible sense. We are not being prescriptive.
	Amendment No. 128 proposes adding "environmental science", but "climate science" is already included in the list of expertise. I am not certain whether environmental science would include climate science, and, on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs made, perhaps environmental science should have been there and not climate science, as it would have covered everything. In other words, the Bill is to be read in the broadest possible sense. That is not an excuse for not having an answer; that is just how the list has been put together. It looks at the make-up of the committee as a whole.
	As I said, the list in paragraph 1(3) is purely in alphabetical order and broadly mirrors Clause 10. I am not going to the stake for ruling numbers out, but for its smooth functioning the committee has to be kept to a manageable size. We think that the extended sizes proposed are certainly too large, but there is flexibility in the Bill to change the numbers. On Amendment No. 128, then, our view is that since climate science is there it should be read in the broad sense. That would ensure that the committee's recommendations are based on the best and most relevant scientific expertise. We are not clear what would be added to the Bill—since this amendment was not proposing a substitute but an addition—by putting in "environmental science".
	Amendment No. 129 proposes the inclusion of,
	"all modes of passenger and freight transport technology and operations".
	Frankly, we cannot see how that is a useful addition, as the committee is already required to look across the economy in providing its advice on the level of carbon budgets. A detailed consideration of all modes of transport is thus likely to be undertaken as part of that work; indeed, transport is one of the work streams already being considered by the shadow secretariat.
	While I am on the point, I apologise to the noble Baroness, who may chastise me for not answering her question about food in the previous debate, although she is not here now and did not make her point clear. Clearly the committee's areas are not ruled out and it may want to give advice about the growing of bio-crops and on the issue of flying in crops from the third world. Food miles is one issue that the Committee on Climate Change, rather than me, can deal with; yet "food miles" is in fact a misnomer. It has been conclusively proven that some products from New Zealand have less carbon content than they would if grown in this country, or so the scientists tell us. It is therefore no simple issue, but the committee would not be precluded from looking at it since its remit is wide enough.
	The expertise on the committee that will be set up already includes "technology development and diffusion". Technology is relevant to the analysis that the committee will undertake on transport, buildings, power generation and other technologies from which abatements can occur. We do not believe, therefore, that mention of a further technology—transport, in this specific context—adds to that. In other words, our inference is that it will be covered.
	On Amendment No. 130, the Government and the devolved Administrations are, as I have said before, strongly committed to protecting and improving the environment. That is already embedded in government policy and strategy. Defra's natural environment public service agreement builds on:
	"The Government's vision ... to secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural environment".
	To ensure a more strategic approach to policy and delivery on the natural environment, the Government also recently published Securing a Healthy Natural Environment, an action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach.

Lord Teverson: While I accept much of the argument that the Minister is making, we are talking about all-round action by government. Yet we are also talking about an independent body that has to have its own expertise to decide its policy. Within the debate on this part of the Bill, which is on the committee's expertise, I do not see that the responsibilities of the Government and government departments are relevant here—although they might be embedded—because it is not up to people in those departments to influence the climate change committee. It is up to the committee itself to fulfil that function.

Lord Rooker: I am not saying that for one moment. It is not the job of the climate change committee to run the world. Nor, indeed, is it the Government's. All I am trying to do is to put this into context. We are not starting with a clean sheet of paper. We are looking at the expertise and the role of the climate change committee. I am simply making the point that Amendment No. 130 seeks to embed in the Bill an effect on the devolved Administrations, but the climate change committee can advise on government policy and say, "By the way, we think things should change". That is fine, but things are already going on now. It is not as though we are starting with a blank sheet of paper. We question whether these are issues which the committee would consider in a meaningful way in its advice on the overall level of the carbon budget, so we do not consider it necessary to have a member on the committee with expertise specifically in those areas. The committee as a whole can encompass that, but that is not to say that it is being ignored. That is the only point that I am making in respect of what is happening in government at present.
	We do think that some of the issues will be more properly considered by the Government in the development and delivery of policies because the policies will be delivered by government and by business and not by the climate change committee. That leads into the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Change management means change in families as well as in businesses and government. Nevertheless, the climate change committee will have to take account of the changes in technology and advice and the practicalities of that advice, so it is a highly relevant question. I will probably get an answer to it at some point but I do not have one at the moment.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that when I withdraw my amendment, the Minister will bear in mind the suggestion that the section on climate science could include the word "ecology" or something else that underlines the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 129 to 131 not moved.]

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Schedule 1, page 32, line 36, at end insert "and each term of office must be at least six years"

Earl Cathcart: The amendment proposes to have a statutory minimum on the term limit of at least six years for members of the committee. There are a number of reasons for having a statutory minimum. I do understand that, as said in the debates so far, there is support in the House for making the committee independent, scientific and apolitical. Yet I hope the Minister will appreciate my scepticism when there are so many commissions and quangos stuffed with party members appointed by the Government. A six-year commitment would mean not only that the members would outlast a Government but that they would be locked in for the long haul such that they could not be replaced in a year or two by a Government who wanted to defend their own interests. It would prevent too much government interference in the committee. A longer term would help to ensure impartiality and, indeed, continuity.
	There are also a number of practical reasons for a long minimum term. For a start, the nature of climate change is such that monitoring it as well as our progress is a long process. Long-serving members will be better equipped to serve the committee. The amendment would mean that committee members would sit for longer than a budgetary period, guaranteeing that they would be on the committee when it made at least one of the reports for the five-year budget period. Indeed, because of the number of different reports that the committee will be responsible for preparing, continuity is certainly advantageous.
	Will the Minister explain what mechanisms are in place in the Bill to ensure the continuity of the committee? Does he think that a committee member can serve for more than one term? I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The language used by the noble Lord is, if I may say so delicately, a little unreasonable. The Government have absolutely no intention whatever of stuffing this committee with anyone at all. I think he knows that.

Lord Rooker: It might be argued that the Government have no control over the committee—certainly not with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments involved. Before I respond briefly, I should say that the point made is valid because, it may surprise Members to know, it is not normal practice to specify terms of appointment in a Bill. There is nothing in the Bill about the length of appointment. It is not there, and there is a reason for that, as I will explain.
	A number of important issues need to be considered before the terms of appointment are agreed. Our current working assumption is that the first committee members should be appointed for a term of five years to marry with the carbon budget cycle. We are presently looking at how the appointments can be staggered to ensure that there is sufficient continuity between budget periods so that committee member appointments do not all end at the same time. Nor do we want the timing of members' terms of office to affect the committee's work on formulating advice on carbon budgets; that is another factor. Six years is a particularly long term for such an appointment. Public appointments are usually, although not exclusively, for three years. Whatever their duration may be, they are restricted to two terms in total, which cannot exceed 10 years. Much of this flowed from the work of the Nolan commission. This is another reason why we are still considering whether five years is appropriate.
	I should also note that it is possible that the length of the carbon budgets may need to change at some point in the future. As I have said, it is important to build the flexibility to follow international practice into the working arrangements. There is therefore a risk to stipulating a precise term of appointment in the Bill. For instance, if the international community or the European Union were to switch to, say, an eight-year or four-year budget period, we would want to do this within our domestic system. Clause 18 allows us to alter the length of the budget period in these circumstances, so it is important that we retain the flexibility to alter the length of the committee members' terms of appointment. This system is consistent with that of other committees, so there is nothing unusual about not having the length of appointment in the Bill. I hope that I have given enough of a flavour of our current thinking, which would of course be clear on the appointment of the members. The point about the appointments being staggered is obviously very important.

The Earl of Caithness: On that last point, the idea is that there is a continual rolling programme of appointments on to the committee. In other words, there are always a number of people on the committee who have been serving on it, new members come on to it and some go off it.

Lord Rooker: That would be the case, but I also mentioned the continuity of the budget period. I think I said that we do not want the timing of the members' terms of office to affect the committee's work on formulating advice on carbon budgets. There must be some marrying and a degree of flexibility. It must be transparent, and no one will serve for ever.

Earl Cathcart: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I draw some comfort from the fact that the first members will be there for five years and that there will be some sort of staggering process. That will produce some continuity. The Minister went on to refer to Nolan and three years. Three years is too short because of the very nature of what we are trying to achieve with the committee, but no doubt he will take all that into consideration. I like the idea of having two terms. That will be very valuable, as will what the Minister said about the flexibility of appointing them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Schedule 1, page 33, line 4, after "6" insert "consecutive"

Earl Cathcart: The amendments in this group outline various instances that should prevent someone from being a member of the committee. Amendments Nos. 133 to 136 clarify a few of the reasons why a member can be excluded and adds a few points that we hope will not find too much discord in the Committee. These amendments simply would make the committee more robust by adding a few more situations that should result in removal or exclusion.
	Amendment No. 133 clarifies the absence required and would change the Bill to read that a member of the committee,
	"who has been absent ... for ... 6",
	consecutive "months or more" can be removed. Amendment No. 134 excludes those,
	"who have been convicted of a criminal offence".
	The other amendments seek to clarify the words "otherwise ... unfit". We suggest the inserting of the words "physically or mentally" unfit and hope that our intention of increasing the clarity of this section is welcomed. Not only does this provide clarity, but it also tightens the scope for the removal process to ensure that it is only those who are truly physically or mentally unfit who are excluded and not those who the national authorities merely deem unfit to serve. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, Amendment No. 134 is quite absurd. It would cover any criminal offence. I think that the noble Lord is thinking of any criminal offence which is imprisonable, but that is caught by the provisions we are considering at the moment. I hope that we will not waste our time in considering these amendments.

The Earl of Caithness: First, I hope that the Committee will join me in sending our good wishes to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and wish him a speedy recovery. We look forward to having him back on the Front Bench. Secondly, I have to say to my noble friend that, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I could not support Amendment No. 134. If someone has had a criminal record and has served his time, that is it and life should go on as normal.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I must apologise, through the Committee, to my noble friend Lord Cathcart if he gave the reason for the word "reasonable" in Amendment No. 135. In terms of reading it as a text, I did not immediately understand what it meant and I wondered whether it was a misprint for the word "respective", "relevant" or something similar. It may be a term of art and in that respect I have missed it.
	I am not seeking to enter on theological issues, particularly in the presence of the two right reverend Prelates, but I must confess that I have long thought that the definition in Blackstone's Law Dictionary of an act of God as being,
	"an act which no reasonable man would expect God to commit",
	extremely neat.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am delighted to respond to this short debate and to give the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, some reassurances. However, before I do that, I should also say how delighted I am that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has been on his feet and has had his dictionary out. Last Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me about the definition of the word "expedient" and I responded by choosing the third of his three options. I have never been good at multiple-choice. Therefore, at the time I qualified that by saying I would take advice, have a little read of the debate and would come back to him if there was a problem.
	I am using this opportunity to clarify that, in Clause 19, the definition of the word "expedient" we are opting for is:
	"Conducive to advantage in general, or to a definite purpose; fit, proper or suitable to the purposes of the case",
	which I believe was option 2. I hope that the Committee will understand my desire to clarify that point now. Rather than writing to everyone, I thought that this would be more helpful, especially as we have had a mention of dictionaries again.
	In resisting the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I hope that I can offer him the clarification he is looking for and pick up on a couple of other points that were made in the debate. As we have heard, paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 sets out the circumstances in which the national authorities may remove a member from the Committee on Climate Change. I should like to point out that this is a power which we would expect to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, but it is important to make sure that the Committee on Climate Change is able to carry out its functions properly.
	Amendment No. 133 adds little to sub-paragraph (a). I cannot see how "6 months" could be interpreted as anything other than a consecutive period. In the absence of any other definition, "6 months" should be interpreted through its natural and ordinary meaning, unless defined otherwise. Members of the Committee will be aware that it is not declined otherwise, so I resist Amendment No. 133.
	Amendment No. 134 proposes an addition to the list of circumstances in paragraph 5. This amendment also would add little, because consideration of a relevant criminal offence—I emphasise the word "relevant"—already would be covered by the existing wording in paragraph 5(d); that is, the use of the phrase "unable or unfit". We are emphasising there the use of the word "relevant" criminal offfence. Paragraph 5(d) states that members may be removed if, in the opinion of the national authorities, they are otherwise unable or unfit to carry out their duties. We believe that this wording already covers the situations outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, but it picks up on the sensitivities highlighted by my noble friends with regard to time served and so on.
	I shall also resist Amendment No. 135, which proposes that when forming an opinion that a member is unfit or unable to carry out his or her duties under paragraph 5(d), the national authorities must reach an opinion which is "reasonable. This kind of discussion comes up quite often in your Lordships' House. This amendment is unnecessary. It is a well established principle of public law that national authorities have a clear duty to act reasonably and, in this case, to form a reasonable opinion. It is therefore already implicit in this clause.
	Amendment No. 136 relates to specific circumstances in which national authorities may remove a member and proposes to define the meaning of the words "unable" and "unfit" in the context of mental and physical obstruction. That is clearly an important clause which allows for a member to be removed in a number of very limited circumstances. It is important that we do not restrict these circumstances too much. This is a very standard clause. As I have already said, it is important for the proper functioning of the committee that any member who cannot fulfil his duties for whatever reason can be removed. But it will be exercised only where there is an inability to carry out the job. It is not a power to sack members on a whim. As we have already heard, it has to be used reasonably.
	The words "unable" or "unfit" may cover certain circumstances which inhibit the member's performance, such as serious health issues. However, it could mean others; for example, a conflict of interest that the member did not have when he was originally appointed. There may be other unforeseen circumstances. I therefore propose that this amendment should be withdrawn. I hope that I have given the Committee the reassurances that it seeks. These provisions must be used reasonably. These standard clauses are designed to ensure that the committee can function properly.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister was good enough to clarify an opinion she gave at an earlier stage. Let me do the same for my noble friend Lord Cathcart. I totally misread his amendment.

Earl Cathcart: I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for that. I thank the Minister for clarifying and putting it on record that the six months referred to in sub-paragraph (a) are consecutive and that being convicted of a criminal offence is included in sub-paragraph (d). I also thank her for her clarification on what is meant by "unable" and "unfit". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 134 to 136 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 137:
	Schedule 1, page 33, line 34, leave out from "executive" to end of line 35

Lord Redesdale: This is a probing amendment to question the Government over the independence of the staff of the committee. The Minister said earlier that the chairman of the committee would have to be agreed by the national authorities. We on these Benches do not have a difficulty with this because the committee will represent all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we have a slight issue with the wording of paragraph 11(1), which says:
	"The Committee must appoint a person to be chief executive, but may only appoint a person who has been approved by the national authorities".
	This may well come into conflict with sub-paragraph (2), which says:
	"The chief executive is an employee of the Committee".
	If the chief executive is to be employed by the committee, is it right that other bodies can censor whom the committee is to be employed by? If we are saying that the committee is independent of outside interference, should it not be the case that other bodies should not be given the option of veto?
	Although people have talked about the independence and scientific base of the committee, if it is to be effective in reducing the amount of carbon released in the atmosphere it will affect every aspect of people's lives. Therefore, every aspect of the committee's work is highly political. That has many implications for the national authorities. It has already been stated that different energy and planning policies are being looked at by different constituent parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister might say that this has already been agreed with the national authorities. But, if we are talking about the independence of the committee, it is a fundamental flaw to say that the chief executive can be held as a political pawn if one moves on and another is to be appointed by the national authorities to prove a point over one particular aspect of any decision which is difficult at that time. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am afraid that I cannot support this amendment although I see my noble friends have put their name to it. It is essential that the constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be happy with the chief executive of the committee. It seems to me very unlikely that there would be political wrangling about this. We are talking about a committee of experts. The time to resolve any problems is before the appointment. It will be difficult enough for the committee to think through its recommendations in such a way as to maximise the possibility that the different parts of the United Kingdom can happily carry them out. Some of these things will be very difficult politically for the different parts of the United Kingdom to implement. Some will be more difficult in one part, some in another. But it is absolutely essential that there should be contentment at the start with the person who is appointed as chief executive.
	I think that this amendment is a great mistake and I hope my noble friends will not pursue it after this discussion. I do not know what the Minister is going to say but presumably, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said, the various parts of the United Kingdom have agreed to this and feel it to be wise. It is not a case of politicising the appointment but of depoliticising it by getting rid of any problems before the appointment is made. I cannot support the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I can see the political and diplomatic argument which underlies the wording which the Government have put into the Bill so far but I can also see that it effectively gives the national authorities a right of veto in terms of particular candidates. I acknowledge the Minister's testimony in speeches on previous amendments to the Government's success in reaching agreement with the various national authorities in putting together teams on issues such as this, but I would be interested in hearing how the Minister thinks approval of particular candidates will be secured under the present wording.

The Earl of Caithness: In the original draft Bill, the provision was for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive. We discussed this in the Joint Committee. The argument is fairly concisely set out in paragraph 156. We recommended that that role of the Secretary of State should be removed from the Bill. I was therefore very pleased with the Government's response on page 56 to our committee which says:
	"On reflection, we agree with the Joint Committee".
	It did not go on to state then that the appointment was to be subject to the approval of the national authorities. One of the key arguments deployed in the Joint Committee was that people on a committee should choose the chief executive. That carried the weight at the end of the day. To curtail that power of members of the committee would, to my mind, be very wrong.

Earl Cathcart: We on these Benches support this amendment. As we have been saying, the committee should be genuinely independent. This process of approval by the national authorities of the chief executive diminishes its independence. Our motivation for having an independent committee is twofold. Not only does it ensure that the committee can make its decisions without regard to political expediency—and I use the word "expediency" again—but it is essential that the committee does not even appear to be making decisions that could be interpreted as political manoeuvres. The second reason alone should be enough to remove the provision for national authority approval. It should not appear that this choice was made in such a way that it would be politically palatable. The choice should be made resoundingly on the merits of the person for the job.

Lord Rooker: I do not think that we need to make a meal of this because it is not a unique arrangement; it happens with other bodies. My killer line is the fact that the chief executive of the climate change committee will be the committee's accounting officer. Bearing in mind that the committee is a UK body but comes with the other bodies, leaving aside the appointment of the chair and the actual members, the other Administrations can take comfort in the accounting officer function anyway and the ability of a person to lead the organisation. There is nothing unusual about this. I have a couple of examples, but I think that they are both unsatisfactory because to the best of my knowledge neither is a UK body. That presents me with a bit of a problem.
	I was thinking about the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I cannot remember the details because it is so long ago, but I have a feeling that the same may have applied to the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency. It is a UK body but all the appointments are made in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. I am not going to rest my case on that, but on the fact that the chief executive will carry the accounting officer function for the climate change committee. It is not a veto and no politics are involved here. The climate change committee will make the appointment and simply get approval. It is not a question of the members working from a list of people who have been vetted by the authorities beforehand. It will not be like that at all because this is a normal process with other bodies. I am only sad that I do not have a list to present to Members of the Committee.

The Earl of Caithness: Could the Minister expand on that a little? What will happen if the committee recommends a certain person but the national authorities say no?

Lord Rooker: To be honest, I do not think that it would get that far. The committee will put together a shortlist, and presumably with the aid of search agents there would be a long-list as well. The committee would talk about the shortlist with the other bodies. To have someone on the shortlist who is not fit for purpose according to the other authorities would not make a lot of sense. It would probably be done at that point, and therefore the committee would choose from a perfectly acceptable shortlist. That is the practical way of doing it, but if I am wrong I will come back to the Committee.

Lord Redesdale: I should like to give the Minister an example because he said that this committee is unique and would be difficult to replicate. The Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, has pushed and won the argument in Government circles on the case for more nuclear power stations for climate change reasons. Of course, we on these Benches are not great advocates of nuclear power. If Sir David or someone of his standing was put forward, would that be acceptable to the Scottish Executive, which has just come out with a non-nuclear policy? I put that hypothetical example to the Minister because he said that that would not be the case. If the purpose of an amendment is to look at a case which could arise, in the example I have suggested, could the Scottish Executive have a veto on Sir David's appointment?

Lord Rooker: With respect, we debated that an hour ago. We are now talking about the chief executive rather than the chairman or members of the committee. The chief executive will implement and run the organisation. The argument about what the candidates believe in and what their views are is irrelevant. The person will be appointed for managerial expertise and other factors. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in his place at the time, but I answered the questions put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. At that point I used the example because it was in my original speech.
	As I have said, one of the reasons that the climate change committee is advisory is that as of last week, the Government have made their views clear on the issue of nuclear energy. It would not be a relevant factor in the process because policy decisions are made by the Government. The climate change committee is an advisory body. So that would not be fair in terms of the question asked by the noble Earl, but here we are discussing the appointment of the chief executive—the professional manager and administrator of the organisation. What the chief executive's views are on particular policy issues are not, I think, the most relevant points for the national authorities to consider. They will be looking for competence, sound financial management, human resources skills and other professional factors required in the management of an organisation.

Lord Redesdale: I will not take this any further, although I was under the impression that the chief executive would have to have a certain degree of expertise in order to run members of staff who will be writing the committee's reports. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Schedule 1, page 34, line 38, at end insert ", save that the Committee must itself exercise its functions as set out in Part 1 of this Act and section 28"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Part of having a robust Committee on Climate Change would be its ability to create sub-committees to investigate particular relevant issues. However, as the Bill stands, our understanding is that the committee is empowered to create sub-committees to carry out any of its functions. We feel that certain functions must be reserved for the committee itself. Indeed, all the functions of the committee set out in Part 1 relating to setting and amending the targets and carbon budgets should be executed by the committee. Considering that the Bill is going to empower the committee to such a great degree, and subject the appointment of its members to such heavy scrutiny, it should be the responsibility of the committee itself rather than a sub-committee to tackle the primary issues.
	Part of this amendment specifically references the duties placed on the committee in Clause 28, related to reporting. We do not want the committee's report on progress to be able to be presented by an appointed sub-committee. We are not against the regular use of sub-committees and outside individuals, agencies and organisations in assisting in formulating decisions. However, we firmly believe that major reports should come from the committee. The committee should consider, and be accountable for, its primary responsibilities itself. With this amendment we are trying to close what could be a loophole that leads to buck-passing. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I briefly intervene only to follow up on a statement which I think my noble friend made at Second Reading when, on behalf of UNISON, which has taken a particular interest in the Bill, I suggested that there may be a role for trade unions in sub-committee work for the main committee. UNISON had in mind the provision in paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 1, which refers to,
	"climate change policy, and in particular the social impacts of such policy".
	They clearly would have to be evaluated. Can my noble friend further clarify to what extent trade unions might have a role if they were to be represented on a sub-committee with responsibilities under one of the headings dealing with social impacts? Of course, union members would be affected in a major way.

Lord Rooker: It is our view that the climate change committee will intelligently make decisions on how it goes about its business, so we do not see why we should stipulate which functions it can and cannot delegate. It will be appropriate for the committee to delegate functions to a sub-committee, member or employee, when it undertakes a special task or to facilitate the organisation's governance arrangements. An example would be an audit committee arrangement. That is a perfectly standard model for non-departmental public bodies and there is nothing new about it.
	It would be surprising if the committee were to delegate a principal function or a sensitive issue and we think that that is most unlikely to happen. The committee as a whole is responsible for how it discharges its functions. If, for example, it decided to delegate a core function set out in Parts 1 or 2, such as its annual report on progress, to a junior member of staff or a single member, it would risk the report not being very good. This relates to the nature of the committee. We have to believe that we will appoint quality people who run a quality organisation.
	On the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, it should be perfectly possible for the committee to have a sub-committee that deals with the interests he mentioned and to take advice on them in the way he elucidated. As I said at Second Reading, all that will be within the ambit of the climate change committee. However, I do not think that we should set down rigid rules for how it operates and manages its governance procedures. Again, there is nothing new about this. It is perfectly normal for a non-departmental public body to operate in this way.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for that response. I emphasise that I was not suggesting for a moment that sub-committees were almost de rigueur. It is necessary and highly specialised work that they will be undertaking. My concern was they that it should not use the structure of sub-committees to bypass its fundamental responsibility for the work of its sub-committees. Indeed, material presented to the Secretary of State or Parliament should come with the full authority of the Committee on Climate Change. Nothing specifically suggests that in this wording, so I would be grateful if the Minister could take note of what has been said in this brief debate. I hope there might be a form of words that could make that element clear so that we can be reassured on this matter.

Lord Rooker: I cannot make specific commitments, but I am happy to have this form of wording looked at.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In which case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 140:
	Schedule 1, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
	"The Committee must take all reasonable steps to ensure effective public participation in the exercise of its functions."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. We have touched on this many times during these debates. So, too, are the proposals and measures that will be taken to stop it. The climate change committee needs to take into account the effects of its proposals and strategies on the public. For this reason, we propose an amendment that requires an element of public consultation on the proposals. It was the Minister himself who presented the fourth side of the triangle, giving a quadrilateral element to our geometry, when he talked earlier this afternoon about public participation. The extent of this can be determined by the committee itself. However, we still feel that there needs to be some way in which there can be some public input into the ramifications of scientific investigation.
	We understand that the climate change committee should be able to assess what needs to be done from a scientific perspective. That is the purpose of our efforts to increase its independence. This amendment does not seek to water down this objective, or to weaken the idea of a committee that makes decisions based on scientific necessity. The amendment simply reflects that these necessities do not exist in a vacuum, and that the strategies developed should be open to consultation from the people that they will affect. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I intervene briefly to ask my noble friend to reconsider some words he used in response to a previous amendment. I think I heard the noble Lord correctly when he talked about the ability of members of the committee to relate to a parliamentary committee, in the sense of being able to put their case competently. I am a little worried about that idea being in the minds of those carrying out these appointments. In my lifetime I have found some of the most effective people to be the most inarticulate. Very often they find it hard to string two words together, yet they were brilliant. I would not like us to exclude from membership of the committee people who may well be scientifically superbly confident, but not particularly articulate. Competence is more important than presentation. I use this amendment to raise this for fear that wrapped up in this whole issue of effective public participation is the idea that only the articulate may be able to present a case on behalf of the committee. It might well be that the role of people who work within the Executive might be the means by which a lot of information from this committee is communicated to the wider public.

Lord Krebs: This amendment raises an important point. The effectiveness of the climate change committee will depend not only on its authority and expertise, about which we have heard very much, but on public confidence and trust in the committee, particularly the link between the advice provided by the independent committee and the action the Government take upon that advice. Openness and public engagement will be essential in building and maintaining that trust. However that is achieved by the committee, it is important that it makes its workings completely transparent. My own suggestion, based on my experience as chairman of the Food Standards Agency, would be for the committee to hold its meetings in public so that public engagement could be direct, with the public not only observing the deliberations and recommendations of the committee, but perhaps being able to ask questions at the end of, or during, committee meetings. This amendment raises a very important point about transparency and trust.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is absolutely right in saying that this debate focuses on the very important question of the need for the committee to develop public confidence and trust. The example of the Food Standards Agency is a good one. The work that the agency has done in developing public engagement could provide some very interesting lessons for the secretariat.
	We have also been engaged in very important debates about the independence of the Committee on Climate Change; with that in mind, I will make a few points. I stress that we want to consider Amendment No. 140, which calls for the committee to ensure effective public participation in exercising its functions. I agree that the committee is likely to benefit, as noble Lords have stressed, from engaging with the public, including those in business, industry and academia. I am confident that the committee will follow best practice in its dealings with these sections of society. It should be for the committee to decide when it might be appropriate to engage with the public. This is true for any independent organisation. However, as I have just said, I see the merits of the suggested amendment and agree that the committee should take reasonable steps to engage the public effectively. Therefore, we will consider this amendment further and bring forward some new thinking at the next stage.
	Before I move on to the next amendment, I would pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I have some experience of working with the scientific community. I understand the anxiety over the trend to suggest that communication is somehow more important than expertise. It is absolutely right that a balance should be struck between all the necessary skills that my noble friend Lord Rooker has discussed in some detail with the House of Lords Committee. There should be a real balance between expertise and the need for executive skills, as the noble Lord suggested, to ensure that the work of the committee is communicated effectively. We are not unaware that scientific expertise does not necessarily embody communication skills, so a balance is required. Whether we are talking about triangular or quadrilateral relationships or a pyramid, emphasis has been placed today very much on the independence of the Committee on Climate Change. Therefore, it would be wrong to be prescriptive about how public engagement should be undertaken and the skills necessary to achieve that.
	Amendment No. 141 would introduce a new clause which would give the committee a duty to make timely recommendations to the Secretary of State in relation to Part 1, and require it to consult the public on what recommendations should be made. This amendment seems to repeat a lot of the issues we have already discussed and I am therefore not sure what it would add. As we have just discussed in relation to Amendment No. 140, the Committee on Climate Change should engage the public in its work. In our discussions before Christmas the Government agreed to consider further the transparency of the work of the Committee on Climate Change, which is also covered by this amendment. The proposed new Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 141 would place a new duty on the Committee on Climate Change to make timely recommendations. However, noble Lords are probably well aware that Clause 30, which we shall come to shortly, already places a duty on the committee to provide advice, analysis, information or other assistance when requested by a national authority in connection with the authority's functions under the Act or climate change generally.
	Therefore, with the reassurances that I have given as regards looking further into public engagement and transparency, which we have already committed to look at, and taking into account the comments made by my noble friend and the importance that your Lordships' House's Committee attaches to public engagement, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the noble Baroness saying that the Government are not necessarily averse to having something in the spirit of Amendment No. 140 in the Bill? I rather hope that she is saying that. I suggest that the Government think fairly hard about the rather new situation we are in now where public consultation and relations with different parts of the United Kingdom sometimes involve people in different parts of the country holding different opinions, and the fact that some of these issues will become somewhat politicised. This is new. Living, as I do, north of the border, I see this possibility increasing. I am sorry about it but I think that it is increasing. If the Government are thinking of designing an amendment, they should remember that there may be problems when the committee engages in public consultation or information dissemination. I am sorry if I go on about this but I feel that the Government must pay attention to this increasing trend.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention and for giving me the opportunity to stress that we need to be clear about the kind of public engagement that we are talking about, and as regards whether we are talking about public engagement undertaken by the Committee on Climate Change or government consultation on new policies in the light of that committee's advice. That is why we are taking this away to think about it. We do not want to muddle the various roles. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for clarity, particularly with the devolved Administrations.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the noble Baroness for her response. This has been a useful debate on an important area of the committee's activity. Therefore, I was very pleased to hear that it may well be possible to incorporate elements of Amendment No. 140 at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 140A:
	Schedule 1, page 36, line 39, at end insert—
	"Disqualification through membership of the Scottish Parliament
	A Member of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified from becoming a member of the Committee."

Earl Cathcart: This is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who cannot be here. My name is also added to it. It originates from the Scottish Law Society and raises an important issue. Does the Minister agree that it is important to create a committee that not only appears to be, but is, genuinely apolitical? Does he feel that it is acceptable to have politicians from whatever Administration sitting on the committee? I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I was intrigued by my noble friend's amendment but surely it ought to include members of the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and this Parliament.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I find this amendment rather curious. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, keeps drawing the long straw in moving all the amendments to which I object while his noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach moves the amendments that I support. I do not understand what is going on. However, if the expertise is there, we should not presume that politicians are not capable of taking off their political hats when they walk into a room. Some people are perfectly capable of doing that. If we get into the business of ruling out individual national Parliaments or Assemblies, what happens if someone in the House of Lords turns out to be precisely the person that we need to be on the committee? We will go down a very dangerous route if we start accepting amendments of this nature. I beg the forgiveness of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, but I have to oppose vigorously this amendment—not that I would want to be a member of the committee; no one would vote me on to it with my modest skills.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: We are at an interesting point in Committee. I am afraid that I have to inform my noble friend that the Bill is designed to ensure that Members of the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly are not allowed to be members of the Committee on Climate Change. Therefore, this probing amendment is very helpful because it gives me the opportunity to clarify that point.

Lord Campbell-Savours: What about a Cross-Bencher in the House of Lords?

Lord Dixon-Smith: Even though we in this House are somewhat independent of our political masters, if it is deemed inappropriate that Members should have a political affiliation, how far down the democratic chain is it proposed to take that because regional authorities still exist? There are county councils, unitary authorities, district councils and parish councils. Are we going all the way down that chain as well or are we making a distinction and having a form of segregation, which is not very PC but which I have to agree is probably sensible?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: We are not going all the way down the chain. It is set out in the Bill. We are making use of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, which does not apply to the House of Lords. This means that Members of the House of Lords would be able to become members of the Committee on Climate Change. Paragraph 28 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 applies in this case and therefore does not disqualify Members of the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are therefore eligible to apply to become members of the Committee on Climate Change. However, all applicants to the committee will have to declare whether they have any political affiliation or are members of stakeholder groups. As we have already debated today and on previous Committee days, we see independence as being crucial. It is vital that the appointments process takes that into account. The way that the various devolution settlements work means that the disqualification aspects for the devolved legislatures come into play. To ensure that the committee is fully independent, MPs and Members of the devolved legislatures will not be eligible to be appointed as members of the Committee on Climate Change.
	Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Schedule 1 make the necessary provisions to disqualify Members of the House of Commons, even though I agree with my noble friend that Members are capable of putting political allegiances aside. We are not just talking about the actuality of what is done but about the perception as well. Therefore, paragraphs 28 and 29 of Schedule 1 also apply to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose—I am very sorry to see he is not well and we look forward to seeing him back here when he is fully recovered—seeks to ensure that Members of the Scottish Parliament are also disqualified from becoming members of the Committee on Climate Change. I can confirm that Members of the Scottish Parliament will be disqualified from appointment to the committee. There is an established procedure for ensuring such disqualification. It is to be effected by means of an order under the Scotland Act 1998 and does not require to be stated in the Bill.
	For completeness, I should also confirm—which I may have already done—that Members of the National Assembly for Wales will also be disqualified from becoming members of the Committee on Climate Change. That disqualification will be given effect by making an amendment order to the National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2006. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. With the assurance that action is being taken, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I think I heard my noble friend say that, while Members of the House of Lords could be members of the committee, they would have to drop their political affiliation. They would not be able to remain members of a political party. Is that not what my noble friend said?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I said that they would have to declare it.

Earl Cathcart: I am very pleased that the probing was to such good effect. I did have doubts when the debate started, but I thank the Minister for her explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Advice in connection with carbon budgets]:
	[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Clause 27, page 14, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) whether targets for the net UK carbon account will be met through the carbon budget,"

Lord Teverson: The Minister has saved me from having to declare an interest as a potential member of the climate change committee. I shall be interested to see all those Cross Benchers who turn up with particularly eloquent speeches for the first round of interviews. We should remember that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is the only person who definitely cannot stand because he is also an MSP.
	In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 and 151. It comes back to the heart of the matter of what the climate change committee is about and to some of the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about earlier. It is certainly the view from these Benches that the committee's role has to be strengthened. One of the things that we were surprised about when the Bill was published after the work of the Joint Committee was that the role of climate change committee seemed to go backwards. In my view, what this committee does, with great diligence and expertise, is assess all those areas we have talked about, set the five-year budgets for three terms ahead and look to see whether they are being met—and not a lot more.
	We do not believe that the climate change committee should not become politicised. Therefore, we do not believe that it should be the instrument for delivering policy. That is the area where we perhaps disagree with some of the other amendments. What we believe fundamentally is that it is a vital role of the climate change committee not just to measure and set targets with Government, but to judge and audit. In these amendments we are saying that it must be a role and a duty—perhaps one of its most important functions—of the committee to look at the targets that have been set through its own work and judge whether government policies are likely to meet those targets.
	From that point of view, going back to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, at the beginning of the debate today, it is a little like the Audit Commission looking at the work and the policies of the Government and asking whether the current trajectory is going to be met by them. It does not then suggest what those policies should be instead. That is the political judgment made by a Government accountable to Parliament. We strongly believe that that must be the major role of the climate change committee and that it will hugely increase its importance and relevance if it is able to judge whether the Government are likely to meet those targets and to be full in its reporting. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will no doubt remember that we considered that point in the Joint Committee. I was just reminding myself of the evidence we received at the time from Mr Jonathan Brearely of Defra, who suggested that,
	"the Committee needed to 'make recommendations to the Government that are sensible and cost-effective'. This in itself would require a thorough examination of a policy mix. Nor can the Committee make sectoral recommendations, or carry out modelling work, without also evaluating the policies necessary to achieve the carbon reductions. It will need to analyse the effectiveness of existing policy and potential policy instruments and ways these might be improved".
	The committee went on to comment in paragraph 144 on page 48 of the report:
	"There is no question that this sort of work will lead the Committee into areas which are more political than the current framework for the Bill provides for. When we put the prospect of the Committee having a policy role in this way to Jonathan Brearely, he replied: 'I think the Committee on Climate Change are going to have to take into account existing policy, and what they are going to have to ask themselves is how much we think the existing policy is going to deliver'. Greater clarity in the statutory duty of the Committee on Climate Change would assist both the Government and the Committee itself. It is essential for the legislation to give the Committee a wider policy evaluation role, and therefore we recommend that the draft Bill include a power for the Committee to carry out an evaluation of current and potential policy when advising the Secretary of State".
	In a sense, the amendments—although they are specific and address particular areas—attempt to take us down this road. In light of the clarity of the Joint Committee's recommendation on this point, this is perhaps an opportunity for the Minister to respond and to make clear how the Government react to that recommendation. I am not clear whether they have included anything in the Bill that covers that point. I, for one, would be grateful to know the Government's attitude.

Earl Cathcart: First, on Amendment No. 143, it is important in the process of consultation and advice on the carbon budgets not to lose sight of the overall goal of the budgets and of the Bill on meeting the ultimate targets. That the advice on the budgets should include some indication of whether the budgets will meet targets might be implied in the Bill. However, we support the amendment to give the Bill greater clarity on this point.
	We also support Amendment No. 145. In our conception, the committee should not just set the budget and then watch from afar, perhaps altering the next budget to be in line with the success or failure of the Government's policies; it should also give advice on the effectiveness of the Government's actions. Once again, although this is perhaps implied in the Bill's provisions on the committee's role, we welcome the more explicit language.

Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment. My point has been perfectly well put by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but I will go even further. The entire thrust of the Joint Committee's recommendations was to ensure that the Government had at their elbow a committee that was sufficiently respected and sufficiently empowered to recommend things that may well not be electorally popular. It was a constant refrain in our committee's discussions that it was important that the Government had support for, and sometimes could even hide behind, unpopular recommendations from the climate change committee. As I have listened to the progress of this Committee stage, I have genuinely come to believe that the Government may well be climbing on to the horns of a dilemma.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been extremely reasonable in consistently attempting to enhance the powers in respect of the committee's responsibilities. I increasingly sense that the Government are resisting that, as they are entitled to. If that is the case, one would have to look again at what goes into the Bill. If we cannot rely on the credibility and authority of the Committee on Climate Change, we have to rely on the legislation. I suspect that on Report the Government may well come to regret that they did not enhance the powers of the Committee on Climate Change and will instead be required to take on board amendments that they are currently resisting.

The Earl of Onslow: First, I apologise to noble Lords for not being here earlier. I really wanted to be here but I was on a Select Committee that went on for a long time.
	I support the principle behind what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. If we lay a statutory duty on the Secretary of State in the long distant future, Governments will be tempted in the near future to say, "Oh well, actually we do not have to do this. Someone else can do it later and they can catch up". This provision would help to stop backsliding. People are always tempted to backslide; it is the most comfortable thing to do as opposed to taking difficult decisions. This process will take a lot of difficult decisions. A duty is being laid on a Government in the quite distant future to do something, and this provision will help intermediate Governments to continue the process towards fulfilment.

Lord Rooker: I say at the outset that I am more than happy—as I have said on previous clauses and this is no different—to go back and look at the way in which the reporting mechanism is set out in the Bill. I cannot accept particular amendments, but we want to get this as clear and precise as possible. We are happy to look at aspects of the amendments, particularly regarding the way in which the reporting mechanism works.
	Clause 27 in some ways gets to why we are setting up the Committee on Climate Change in the first place. We are asking the committee to provide the Government with independent advice on the level of the carbon budget to strengthen transparency and accountability on how to reduce emissions in the UK. The committee's advice on the level of the carbon budget will be a key element in assisting the Secretary of State in making decisions on the level of each carbon budget. The committee will have to give advice that is fit for purpose to the Government, so the committee will have to make an assessment on the best trajectory to meet the 2020 and 2050 targets and give advice on budget levels that are consistent with that trajectory.
	However, Amendment No. 143 would require the committee to advise on whether the 2050 target will be met through a budget. As we discussed earlier in relation to Amendment No. 43 to Clause 8, the decision on the level of every carbon budget must be made with a view to meeting the targets in the Bill. So there is already a statutory requirement on the Government to set budgets in such a way that it leads to the long-term targets being met. But as I have said before, it is not possible for a single budget to deliver the target. We are not talking just about the budgets for 2018-22 or for 2048-52 but about all of the budgets in between as well. Therefore, Amendment No. 143 does not enhance the framework set out in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 145 would seem to ask the committee not only to provide its advice on budgets but to assess whether the Government were on track to meet them. Amendment No. 151 proposes an identical requirement through the committee's annual progress report. We are not clear why the committee is being required to provide the assessment twice, possibly within six months. In terms of the committee's advice under Clause 27, we see this as a focused task—the committee will be required to look across the economy in providing its advice on the level of carbon budgets. This will not be a simple matter, and we therefore think that under Clause 27 the committee should focus on advising on the most appropriate level of carbon budgets needed to achieve the long-term goals.
	Amendment No. 151 relates to the committee's annual reporting function under Clause 28. We agree that, when carrying out this role, we should ensure that the committee has sufficient discretion to report on matters that it considers appropriately within its remit. We should not underestimate the strength of the existing reporting provisions in the Bill. The committee's annual report to Parliament under Clause 28 is required to set out the committee's views on the progress made towards meeting both the carbon budgets and the 2050 target. In writing its annual report, the committee will inevitably take the Government's report under Clause 11 into account and form its own view on the proposals and policies that it contains. If the committee's annual report to Parliament says that the UK is currently off-track, we would expect that the Government of the day would be under huge parliamentary and public pressure to say what they are going to do to get the UK back on track.
	We will also discuss the committee's report under Clause 28 in greater detail under another group of amendments that we will come to shortly. As I indicated earlier, we are willing to look at ways of strengthening the reporting requirements in the Bill. We will consider the best way to do this before Report, taking account of the debate that we have just had on this group, including Amendment No. 151, and the debates to come. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for that response, which I think was fairly positive. I know that we have had this debate about final targets and meeting each individual one, but, as I said, Clause 1 makes absolutely clear what we are talking about. What we on these Benches are looking for at a strategic level is a duty and a responsibility—which is in this general section of the Bill—on the Climate Change Committee to assess policy in relation to outcome and targets. I understand and welcome what the Minister said and I think that this is a move in the right direction.

Lord Rooker: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I would like to put another couple of points on the record in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I regret that I did not make them earlier but I can do so now. I am sorry that I did not complete the answer but I made a note.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, specifically asked about the committee's role on policies. Although I alluded to that in what I just said, I have a specific note which may be useful in our deliberations. Our view is that the committee should look at progress overall in reducing emissions. As part of that, it will need to look at emission trends—whether they are going up or going down. However, we do not expect the committee to recommend future policies. The committee might say that more needs to be done, but it will be for the Government and the other authorities to decide how to fulfil it. This comes back to the issue which others have raised about nuclear energy: it is for the Government to decide how to get back on track. As I said, however, we are willing to look at Clause 28 to see how this can be achieved.
	There is a role for the committee on policies, but its role would not be to recommend future policies. The committee has to have a role in the assessment of the overall effect of reducing emissions and the effect of policies, but we do not see that its role would be to recommend future policies. It will be for the Government to come up with policies to give practical effect to advice from the Committee on Climate Change.

Lord Teverson: The Minister reflects my own views entirely in that area. I particularly welcome his last comment about the committee's duties. We certainly do not want to let this issue slide and we will come back to it at Report. But, given those positive remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 146:
	Clause 27, page 14, line 16, at beginning insert "individually and"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This is a probing amendment, because we are not entirely sure how this element of Clause 27 will work in practice. Clause 27(1)(c)(i) currently states:
	"It is the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State, in relation to each budgetary period, on ... the respective contributions towards meeting the carbon budget ... by the sectors of the economy covered by trading schemes".
	Yet it specifies that this be considered as a whole. Could the Minister explain the logic behind looking at the sectors of the economy that are covered by trading schemes only in the aggregate? The sectors of the economy that will be involved with trading will presumably represent some of the most significant contributors to carbon emissions. Why does the Bill specify that they could be examined only as a whole?
	Our amendment changes this language to place the duty on the committee to give advice relating to sectors of the economy individually and as a whole. It is not enough simply to advise on the parts of the economy that are trading credits and those that are not. It could be very important to have regard to the contributions to the carbon budget from individual sectors of the economy, however defined. Any information or specificity surely should be welcomed. This amendment neither places a duty to legislate based on sectors nor sets individual targets for sectors. It simply places a duty on the committee to give advice regarding the contributions of individual sectors to the bigger picture. Does the Minister not think that this increased specificity of advice would be useful? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I have an excellent two-page speaking note on this narrow amendment and a one-page question and answer sheet. I am going to ask and then answer the question as I think that it goes to the heart of what the noble Lord has just said. The question is: will the Committee advise on how much different sectors of the economy should do. The answer is: the committee will advise on the correct distribution of effort across time of the carbon budgets to meet the 2050 targets, and between the sectors of the economy covered by trading schemes, taken together, and other sectors, taken together. The committee's assessment of effort across the economy will focus on the balance of effort between sectors of the economy in trading schemes and other sectors. It will also advise on the spread of effort between reductions in UK emissions and reductions in overseas emissions.
	The committee will be expected to assess where carbon savings might be made to keep emissions within budget and on course to reach the legislated targets. However, this will not be tantamount to suggesting specific carbon budgets for specific sectors. There is likely to be a great deal of flexibility about where cost-effective abatement may occur. It is up to the Government to take on board the committee's advice and ultimately to develop policies to achieve savings in particular sectors. Making significant carbon reductions is a process which, while cost-beneficial in the long term, will require some tough political choices, as I think everyone understands. The committee's role is to shine an independent light on the analysis informing these choices.
	I think that that is a much better answer to the noble Lord. He asked a specific question, and that is more precise than my actual note.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: That is a very interesting and informative response. In order to give its advice on the trading sectors as a whole, as opposed to the non-trading sectors, the committee and its back-room staff would have to form a view about the way in which the overall trading sectors broke down. Surely the credibility of the advice it gave would depend on the support it gave by indicating the kind of areas that it would expect to come about over the next five to fifteen years. I understand entirely the slight dilemma that that would create for a Government faced by the breakdown provided by the Climate Change Committee. After all, the breakdown is only advice and indicative and the Government might not pursue it exactly in its policies.
	It is likely that the climate change committee's overall budget projections would lack credibility in the eyes of both the public and the relevant key sectors if this were all subsumed under two very broad figures. I wonder if the Government have set their minds against this or whether it is something that the climate change committee may eventually be able to reflect on and discuss with the Government.

Lord Rooker: I say to my noble friend that the committee's advice on the budget will be based on, for example, a certain level of emissions savings coming from the traded sector, for which an absolute emissions cap can be set, and a certain level of emissions savings from the non-traded sector. I hope that I again made the distinction in my initial remarks between the committee's role in providing overall analysis and the Government's role in deciding on the precise policy mix to take advantage of the potential to reduce emissions. It must be for the Government to make the decision on the right mix of policies for setting caps for emissions trading schemes and for other policy measures as well. We do not want the committee to duplicate effort or to go into the detail of what the Government's policy should be on individual issues, such as whether a policy on renewable heat needs to be different, as that would dilute the committee's core function, on which we want it to concentrate, which is to advise on the level of the carbon budget as a whole.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We are back into an area where there seems to be a dichotomy of view between the opposition Benches and the Government. I see the whole project of trying to reduce carbon emissions as trying to build a house with rather rough stones of different sizes. We are not talking about wire-cut bricks, but dealing with situations in which there will be certain areas of the economy—certain sectors—where progress can be made quite quickly and things will move fast, and other areas where things will be more stubborn. There will be no one-size-fits-all solution. If the Committee on Climate Change is to have any credibility, it must have a sectoral approach built into its whole thinking process and into its dialogue with the Secretary of State, the wider public and Parliament. It will need to have a position on these matters. I do not see that as duplication. I see the Climate Change Committee as the place from which all this originates. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Reports on progress]:
	[Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 not moved.]

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 152:
	Clause 28, page 15, line 7, leave out from "report" to end

Earl Cathcart: The amendments in this group are very similar to some that we have already debated today, but they go a little further. They are an attempt to clarify the language in Clause 28, which deals with reports on progress, such that a genuine report on our progress is what emerges as a result of this clause. The wording of the Bill places a duty to report on the way in which the budget was or was not met. That is too weak and ambiguous. Our language, which is in the spirit of the Government's intention in this clause, is better in that it calls for a report on the extent to which the budgets have or have not been met. It also mandates that the report be not just a progress of past action but an assessment on the impact of this action for the future. Thus instead of simply reporting on how the budget was or was not met, we propose to include in the report the extent to which the budgets have been or will be met. Indeed, the report should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the action taken in meeting the budgets and recommendations for further action that should be taken to ensure that budgets are met.
	We are trying in these amendments to strengthen the Bill's reporting mechanism so that we get a genuinely accurate picture of our progress, so that we understand the reasons for our progress and get an idea of how to make future progress. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: Part of this is clearly in line with the previous group of amendments which we tabled. I again make the point that what still worries me is that it moves the clause into recommendations on government policy. One of the key characteristics of climate change policy is that there is no one policy mix, no one route to get to where you want to be. The balance between different energies, between energy production and energy saving, between technological standards and all these other areas of a very complex policy mix leads as near as possible to an infinite range of possibilities. We on these Benches find it difficult to understand how the climate change committee could then say, "This is the way you must move forward from here".
	We back the amendment on the basis of the Government's justifying a gap between aspiration and actual performance. However, on policy, we find it difficult to understand how the climate change committee could come down to particular recommendations on how to move forward.

Lord Rooker: This group of four amendments would substantially rewrite part of Clause 28. To get the good news out of the way first, Amendments Nos. 153 and 155 will certainly be taken away to be looked at again. We cannot accept the other two for reasons which I have given before, because they go into policy recommendation.
	As I said, we are keen to ensure that the overall framework of the Bill is transparent, and the system of annual accountability through the committee's progress report to Parliament and the Government's response is an important part of that. The provisions in Clauses 28 and 29 will help to ensure that there is a well-informed public and parliamentary debate on our progress towards the 2050 target. Before Christmas, during other stages, I made it clear that we did not support annual targets but were willing to look again at how the annual reporting provisions in the clause could be strengthened. We will therefore look at the two amendments in the same way. We will also look at Amendment No. 151, which was just discussed. I am happy to give detailed reasons for that if required.
	We oppose Amendment No. 156 because it has a policy recommendation aspect. That is consistent with what we have been saying. Anything else I have to say would duplicate what I said previously. It is two you win and two you lose on this one, I am afraid.

Baroness Northover: It is a draw.

Earl Cathcart: Win two, lose two: it is better than nothing. I am sorry that the Minister is unable to take away Amendment No. 156, but that is consistent with what he has said in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 153 to 157 not moved.]

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: This may be an appropriate moment to break. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 pm. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Benefits: Social Fund

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: asked Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to reform the Social Fund.
	My Lords, it is my pleasure this evening to open this short debate on the important subject of the Social Fund. I fear, looking at the list of speakers, that it is the same small group of hard-bitten men and women who will man the barricades for the duration of this short session, but I hope that the Treasury Bench will accept that it is an important subject. I know that there are colleagues in other parts of the House who are also interested in the development of the Social Find.
	I will concentrate my introductory remarks on the discretionary element of the Social Fund more than anything else. At the weekend, because I am a sad person with nothing better to do, I went back to the 1985 White Paper—the moment of glory for the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, when, as a young radical, he introduced the 1986 Social Security Bill. I was there to observe it. The 1986 legislation, introduced in 1988, brought in the Social Fund, and the 1985 White Paper set up the policy rationale for that fund. I shall sketch two or three things that were the policy objectives at that time. First, it said it would be better able, as a Social Fund, to respond to individual needs as they arose, as opposed to the system of single payments which had been in place since 1980. You could ask yourself whether, over the past 20 years, that objective has been met; it is questionable. Secondly, the rationale suggested that the Government would be able to consider developing the scope and operation of the scheme as experienced was gained. There have been some useful changes made since, particularly those in 2006 dealing with double debt and all the rest of it. Yet the case could be made that, in the 20 years since 1988, the structure of the scheme has not really changed as much as it should have done, and certainly not at much as its authors perhaps anticipated. Thirdly, the documents said that they hoped that decisions would be made locally by specialist officers with the minimum of formality. The personal advisers who are making these decisions now are certainly not local. I understand that they are being withdrawn to a system of 20 specialist benefit processing centres, so the locality of the original scheme is now in question.
	The fourth aim—I like this one the best—was that Social Fund officers would, as part of their job, provide a focus for liaison with social services, social work departments, health authorities and voluntary agencies. That would be a land far from the reality of the everyday work of the hard-pressed people who are trying to deal with crisis loan applications these days. My initial proposition, then, is that the original founding principles and elements of the policy of the Social Fund have not been met. The Social Fund is not now doing what it was designed to do, nor what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and his team aspired to do when they put it into legislation. There is now a case for long-term change.
	In fact, I have been waiting for some time for the department to bring forward long-term change because it was presaged by no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2003 Red Book. It was clearly said then that the Government were considering the case for "further" change of the Social Fund. That was in 2003. We now have 2010 poverty targets, and we know the Government have a challenge in trying to meet those. We have got a brand new public service agreement dealing with socially excluded adults, a group that requires the services of the Social Fund. We have also, rightly, got a lot of heavy consideration of financial inclusion through the Thoreson review. We have had the interim review—I did not think it added up to much and I am looking forward to February or March when the final report comes through. Financial inclusion may well be a new element that the Social Fund moves into, rather than anything else. Yet still nothing has happened.
	We have had no shortage of ideas; we have even had David Blunkett, a Member of Parliament, writing a pamphlet in October 2006 for the Resolution Foundation, Ladders Out of Poverty, which had a lot of good ideas—I commend it to the Minister as bedtime reading. Various Ministers have talked about seasonal grants—the last one I remember was Jim Murphy MP, when he was Minister, at the back-end of November 2006. I got excited about a story in the Observer for a short time because I thought that it was at least some evidence that there was something going on in the undergrowth of the department, and that if I just contained my patience something would emerge which would fit the bill in terms of long-term reform. I do not think we have seen anything. It would help me and the rest of the House enormously if, in this debate, the Minister said something about what the Government have up their sleeve in the future on where the Social Fund will be in five or 10 years' time.
	I want to spend most of my time this evening looking at more operational end resource issues; they are by definition more short-term, and deal with some of the pressures being experienced both within the Jobcentre Plus bureaucracy and by the claimants outside who are trying to get access to the services offered by the Social Fund. I am particularly concerned about crisis loans and community care grants.
	First, the new Jobcentre Plus standard operating model is a good thing. I am in favour of the general principles behind the system that requires and enables people to make claims for their benefits by telephone, by and large. Yet this has been running over the last two or three years, and the more I look at it the more I come to the clear conclusion that there is a percentage of the claimant customer base that cannot reasonably be expected to successfully negotiate the telephony system we have. There are various estimates about how big a percentage that is, and my best guess—it is no more than that—is that something of the nature of 10 per cent of the client base of Jobcentre Plus are at risk of failing to properly access these services in the way that would be reasonable, unless other things are done in addition to what we have in the standard operating model at the moment. There are some real concerns in trying to deal with that operational issue.
	We have got until March 2008 before the model is finally rolled out. The centralisation process has worked for the vast majority of people, particularly the service available to pension credit and all the rest of that, but there are emerging issues that are not going to go away, which suggests they are problems still to be addressed. If we need any evidence, the citizens advice bureaux report produced last summer, Not Getting Through, captures all the difficulties that bureaux advisers had in dealing with customers' and claimants' problems in accessing community care grants and crisis loans in particular. I also lodge as evidence to support my case the Social Security Advisory Committee's Occasional Report Series No. 3, which raised some concerns about telephony services as well. These are serious people, they know what they are doing and they have put their finger on a real problem which is not going to go away unless we do something about it.
	My first plea for operational and resource issues of a short-term kind is, then, to get a much higher level of efficiency across the board in how these crisis loans and community care grants are administered. I have access to Independent Review Service figures relating to community care grants for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2007. From this evidence, the Minister should not just accept at face value some of the target average figures, because the averages mask and disguise some really appalling delays being visited on some customers and clients, who are not in a strong position to be able to withstand the financial consequences of not having the money.
	In the course of the initial decisions that the IRS received from April to December 2007, the headline total comes through that 68 per cent of cases were decided within 10 days. That sounds fair enough. If one looks behind that, performances within that 68 per cent range from 95 per cent in Northumbria, which is very good, to 21 per cent in Norwich which is not at all good. Looking at the longer target, 98 per cent of cases were decided within the 30 days. Again, Ministers might be lulled into a sense of complacency and think that that is not a bad score, considering that the system has not yet bedded in properly, but 11 offices achieved 100 per cent, which is really good and at the other end of the scale, Norwich again achieved 51 per cent within 30 days, which is only half.
	Looking at review decisions—not initial decisions—the problem is worse: 40 per cent of cases were reviewed within the 10-day standard period and there was a range of 92 per cent in Lancashire West to 9 per cent in the West Midlands. Looking at the 30-day average for review decisions, 86 per cent of cases were reviewed within that period, with two offices reviewing 100 per cent within that time, which is great. Again, the worst performing office was Norwich which achieved 41 per cent in that 30-day target—I do not know what is going wrong in Norwich.
	The figures get worse for November and December. The most recent figures are trending in the wrong direction. The outstanding work in Jobcentre Plus, according to the IRS, is at the review stage, but at the end of November 2007 Jobcentre Plus allegedly had 26,000 initial applications awaiting decision which is about two weeks' work, as I understand it, and 11,500 outstanding reviews, which represents about six weeks' work. Those are bad figures.
	If the Minister is not prepared to take my word for it, I hope that he will look very carefully again at the review by Sir Richard Tilt, the IRS Social Fund commissioner, for 2005-06. Sir Richard Tilt is a very serious man and he has been doing this work for six or seven years now. In his summary of issues for consideration he lists certain points, but I do not have time to go through them in great detail this evening. However, seeing the kind of figures that I have just raised and having access to Social Fund inspectors who find individual cases that sometimes are much worse than the figures I have just quoted, Sir Richard is very aware of the difficulty. Three times in his set of 10 or so issues for consideration at page 7 in the 2005-06 annual report, he stresses the need to, "take urgent action". He talks about the need to identify accurately the demand levels for crisis loans made by telephone, about which I have just spoken—as with community care grants—and taking urgent action to ensure that staff at Jobcentre Plus comply with the policy of accepting written applications for crisis loans, because there is some confusion about that. He goes on to suggest that we might introduce a facility of applying by telephone for reviews of crisis loan decisions at the earliest opportunity to try to cut down on some of the backlogs and delays. There is a menu of action for the short-term under the heading of more efficiency across the board in terms of the standard operating model in Jobcentre Plus.
	A couple of other things need to be attended to and they are more of a resource and budgetary nature. The discretionary part of the budget needs to be increased because we still have postcode and calendar lotteries. The Select Committee which I had the privilege to chair in 2001—the old social security Select Committee—made a special feature of that in its recommendations in 2001. The position has not changed and arguably it is getting worse. Postcode and calendar lotteries need to be wrung out of the system. That will require a fresh look at the way in which the budget is deployed.
	Eligibility needs to be widened. I am saddened and distressed to discover that alignment payments are still being used. People who do not get an early benefit decision apply for a crisis loan because they do not have the benefit in time. That attacks the crisis-loan budget in a way in which it was never designed to operate, so that people who need crisis-loan help do not get it because others need help as negotiating their benefit payments has taken too long.
	We really need to reduce some of the existing exemptions; for example, I have never understood why people cannot claim for a deposit for a house. People can claim for rent, but they cannot claim for a deposit which secures the tenancy and sometimes that needlessly leads to homelessness.
	The final point I want to make on the operational issues that need to be considered in the short term is that the telephony and the system of application for Social Fund applicants, particularly those trying to get access to crisis loans and to community care grants, are just not working. I think all that background adds up to a compelling case both for urgent consideration of the short-term issues and remedial action in the longer term for fundamental reform.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and highlighting these important issues which affect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is a pleasure to support him. He speaks with great experience and authority after his many years specialising in this area in another place.
	I want to focus on the problems that people have in accessing crisis loans. They are very much at the sharp end; they are the casualties of our society. I want to highlight some of the aspects covered by Sir Richard Tilt in his report and I shall press the Minister on what action the Government will take to remedy the situation.
	Crisis loans give immediate help with day-to-day living costs or help in an emergency, as the CAB points out, to people who really are in desperate need. I think it is fair to say that there is a very worrying trend of incompetence in how the decisions are made. The percentage of crisis-loan decisions that have to be changed has been rising steadily from 50.8 per cent in 2004-05 to 52.9 per cent in 2005-06 and to a shocking 58 per cent last year according to the most recent report. Can the Minister tell us why that is deteriorating? Does he accept that that is a completely unacceptable position? What action is he taking to deal with it? You can apply for these loans if your emergency could put the health and safety of you or your family at risk, as the DWP official guidance states. There were 1,448,000 applications last year. That is a lot of people in crisis and a lot of people with problems: 334,000 were initially refused.
	From reading the commissioner's excellent report, I believe that part of the problem is access. Although he acknowledged that Jobcentre Plus dealt with more than 1 million applications for crisis loans, the IRS has continued to receive complaints from all over the country about the difficulties that people face accessing the scheme. The main reasons for complaint were inability to get through on the crisis-loan telephone lines, despite trying constantly, officers refusing to accept applications made in writing or face to face and a failure by officers to record and issue a written decision if refusing an award, thereby preventing the applicant pursuing a review.
	All the evidence indicates that difficulties that people experience getting through on the crisis-loan telephone lines are widespread. They did two samples. Between 1 November and 22 November 2006, only 10 per cent of the calls made were successful in getting through; 41 per cent found the line engaged; 5 per cent had no reply; 27 per cent got a recorded message; and 17 per cent were placed in a queue. Those are people in desperate need. When we come to the most recent figures—for February to March 2007—only 4.8 per cent of calls were successful in getting through and no less than 54.4 per cent got a recorded message. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister tell me what he is going to do?
	The conclusion of the independent report states,
	"there is considerable evidence to show that serious and widespread difficulties remain for people trying to apply for crisis loans".
	The Social Fund Commissioner suggests that,
	"the Department takes urgent action to identify accurately the demand levels for crisis loans by telephone, provides the resources needed to meet that demand and publishes a standard for this service".
	He also suggests that,
	"the Department takes action to ensure its staff comply with the duty to accept applications and issue formal decisions".
	There is worrying evidence in his report of extreme regional disparities in performance. I am not quite as sad as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, but I, too, have done a little study and looked at back reports. Why was it that in 2005-06 only 22.5 per cent of crisis-loan decisions in the south-east were confirmed—in more than three-quarters of cases the office got it wrong—which is less than half the level in some of the better areas? In 2006-07, the correct assessment rate in the north-east, the best region, was two and a half times higher than that in the south-east. What is it about the south-east that makes for these persistently poor results? What action will be taken?
	As my noble friend Lord Kirkwood said, there is an unfortunate randomness and unfairness, and I shall talk about that a little more. There is a postcode lottery in the way the Social Fund works depending upon where one lives in the country. It works very fairly, but why should it be as the independent review service reported to the House of Commons Select Committee? It said:
	"The formula by which the budget is distributed to districts leads to significant inequity between different parts of the country. This contributes to wide disparity in decision-making and different outcomes for people depending on where they live. This can affect the amount of award and indeed whether an award is made at all".
	In the highest-demand areas, restrictions mean that even people who meet the highest criteria of qualifying need are not receiving payments or are receiving insufficient payments. Out of 78 Social Fund districts in 2006-07, only 23 were able to grant all high priority need applications without restrictions. It is not surprising that the House of Commons Select Committee concluded:
	"We agree with the Social Fund Commissioner that it is "unacceptable that someone can qualify [for a Grant] and have the items assessed as high priority and still not get a payment because there is not enough money".
	That highlights the most immediate and urgent problems that I want to take up, following my noble friend. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is now just 17 years since I last turned my attention to the Social Fund, so I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for prompting me to look at it again. In one sense, nothing has changed since it was fully introduced in April 1988 by its insertion in the Social Security Act 1986, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Fowler. I say that because it was, as it still is, severely cash-limited, even though, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, absolute poverty is now rising again. The Government regularly speak about financial inclusion and what they are doing to encourage it, but as things are at the moment, it appears to be failing the most vulnerable, the very people whom the Social Fund was set up to help.
	I note an answer given by the Minister responsible to the Treasury Select Committee of another place on 16 November 2006. He said,
	"the social fund does not punch its weight in terms of the financial resources the government puts behind it".
	That means even those resources that the spokesmen for the party on my right have described as, if not quite "disgracefully limited", then verging on that. Later, the Minister said that he thought it was possible for the Social Fund,
	"to do a good deal more in terms of sustainable support for people and more in terms of affordable credit lines than it does at the moment".
	The noble Lord's Question for Short Debate is timely indeed, and both he and I will expect to hear what more is being done, given that a year has passed since those comments were made by the Minister.
	It is not, to be fair, that the Government have been doing nothing over the past few years. They have abolished the double-debt rule whereby someone's available budgeting loan award was his maximum amount minus—for some unknown reason—twice his existing budgeting loan debt, and have replaced it with a single-debt rule. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me how that works. Does it mean that loans are cumulative, as they should be? In other words, can loans be taken out in tranches, up to the maximum allowance? The Government have introduced just three rates for the budgeting loan maximum amount: for single people; for childless couples; and for families, whether with one or two parents. They have increased the minimum budgeting loan that can be awarded from £30 to £100 and doubled the amount of capital an applicant can have to £1,000 for the under-60s and £2,000 to those over that age. They have also reduced the loan repayment rates and increased the loan repayment period. Lastly, they have increased the overall debt limit from £1,000 to £1,500.
	All these are positive measures, which we on this side of the House welcome, but—and it is a big but—they are useless if the people who need Social Fund loans cannot get access to them. Therein lies the problem that has beset the fund ever since its inception. The first problem is the uneven spread across the country of applicants and of the available finance in each social security office. Following Gershon principles, the Government are in the process of reducing the number of access points from the 120-odd social security offices that there used to be to just 20. They cover 23 areas, three of which are in London and one of which, for some unknown reason, is in Milton Keynes—perhaps the Minister could explain that one. That means that for almost all clients, access to the Social Fund officer has to be by telephone, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, who pointed out some of the difficulties that that entails. During my research updating my knowledge of this subject, I heard of one client who gave up after two hours on the telephone. That is not uncommon, but is clearly a disgrace and needs to be rectified. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that the problem does not necessarily lie at the door of the potential client: it is much more likely to lie at the door of the administrative facilities and the equipment of individual offices.
	This reduction of offices also means that Social Fund officers do not know the area from which the client is calling, so can no longer give advice about other appropriate sources of finance or whatever other help is required, as good officers were wont to do in days gone by, and the White Paper has suggested will become the norm. Furthermore, Leslie Strathie, the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus has confessed that telephone calls are neither recorded nor monitored. How does this help the client, or indeed those parliamentarians trying to understand what is going on? I have been told of a West Bromwich man who was unable to get through to the crisis loan number and spent the last of his money on fares to a jobcentre office to apply in writing, only to be told to keep trying the phone lines because written claims were no longer used, which is nonsense. That is totally unacceptable, and such statements can only be made because of a lack of training, or perhaps, in that particular case, retraining.
	Talking of training the officers, like the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, I ask why there is such variation in decision times. The IRS informs me that for cases received from 1 April to 31 December, 68 per cent of initial decisions on community care grants were decided within 10 days. That is an average figure, and we all know that averages are the mean of extremes. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood said, in this particular case, performances ranged from 95 per cent in Northumberland to 21 per cent in Norwich. Why? Is it that there not enough staff in Norwich, that the budget is inadequate, that staff are taking too long to make a decision, or what? I do not regard there being more applicants in Norwich—if there were—as an excuse. As we have heard, when in the same period these decisions went to review, 40 per cent were reviewed in 10 days, again hiding wide variations; performances ranged from 92 per cent in Lancaster West to only 9 per cent in the West Midlands. The same two questions apply.
	The resolution of the levels of staffing is self-evident and can be dealt with; however, the question of money is not. I am not advocating injecting more money into the budget, but with only 20 area offices, the department should be able to do the same as I did when I was responsible in Northern Ireland. We had 21 or 23 social security offices—I cannot quite remember—and each one had already been given a monthly budget by the time I arrived. Inevitably, some offices overspent and others used nothing like the amount that they were allocated, so I took executive action to even this up by transferring money from the haves to the have-nots. Would that the Minister were working in a department where he had such power, but he clearly is not. Does he consider that that could become the norm in this country now there has been this drastic reduction in numbers of offices dealing with the Social Fund?
	When a Social Fund application is refused, the would-be client turns to other sources of finance. Because banks are usually unwilling to lend money to such people for fear of non-repayment, almost their only recourse is to loan sharks and others with unacceptably high interest rates. They are often unaware of what they are getting into, even though annual percentage rates are published. The Institute of Financial Services published a study in 2006 saying that 79 per cent of the population did not understand the term "APR", and, even more alarmingly, 50 per cent did not understand what "50 per cent" meant. If these figures are to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt them, that is hardly a plaudit for the expression "education, education, education". What are the Government doing about financial education? The pressure on the Social Fund might decrease if people knew that they could afford other sources of finance. Those other sources include, but are not limited to, credit unions. These are, alas, not as numerous or as widespread as we would like. Will the Government seek to encourage their formation? The more available they become, the more we will encourage thrift in our society.
	Finally, I understand that most loans are for broken domestic appliances. Some offices, I am told, are giving loans of less than the replacement value of a bed, cooker or washing machine. It seems odd in this day and age that a refrigerator is still an excluded item—I understand that loans are not given for them. Why will the Government not take up the suggestion of the Social Fund Commissioner who believes that with their purchasing power, the Government could get permitted items considerably cheaper, even at cost? The client could go along to the shop or manufacturer of his choice, and the local Social Fund officer would be sent the bill. All the client would need would be the authority to purchase—up to, clearly, a certain limit. In case the Minister is frightened of a voucher scheme, recent research, I am told, has shown that more than 70 per cent of clients would find vouchers totally acceptable.
	So there are several low- and no-cost things that the Government could be doing to improve the Social Fund. I wait, with eagerness, to hear what is being done to improve its operation, over and above what has been done in the past 18 months or so.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for initiating the debate and for giving us an opportunity to discuss the Social Fund. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Skelmersdale, for their contributions.
	I will start by outlining the Government's view on the Social Fund and reform. Noble Lords will know that the Social Fund was introduced over the period 1987 to 1988 to replace the old supplementary benefits single payments scheme. I am impressed that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was there at the birth of the arrangements. The scheme plays an important role in helping people on low incomes who are likely to have difficulty in coping with large one-off expenses. In particular, the discretionary part of the scheme provides a vital safety net for vulnerable people at times of pressure or crisis, as well as a budgeting tool for handling more routine expenditure.
	Overall, during 2006-07 the discretionary Social Fund provided help in the form of more than 2.6 million awards, mainly to people on qualifying income-related benefits. We paid 1.3 million budgeting loans amounting to nearly £600 million, together with a further 1.1 million crisis loans amounting to a further £100 million. That was in addition to more than a quarter of a million community care grants at a cost of £140 million. From the start of the Social Fund until the end of November 2007, more than 35 million loans—worth more than £7.6 billion in cash terms—and more than 4.9 million community care grant awards have been made. Whatever the challenges of the Social Fund, it is clearly meeting need in significant measure. The Social Fund plays a unique role in giving our customers a source of both discretionary and regulated grants, and of interest free credit. Unsurprisingly, it provides most assistance to people who are most vulnerable to financial pressures—lone parents and disabled people.
	The Government have signalled a clear commitment to continue to help people on low fixed incomes to budget for their needs. We have made a number of significant improvements to the scheme. Between April 2003 and April 2008 we will have invested an additional £300 million in the discretionary Social Fund to provide more help to more people and make more improvements, particularly to the budgeting loans scheme. In 1999, the Government transformed budgeting loans from a wholly discretionary scheme, where applicants had to justify the need applied for and the priority of that need, to a scheme based on simple factual criteria that operates on a consistent basis throughout the country. We have built on these early changes, and in 2006, as has been acknowledged, we made further simplifications so that people could easily understand what they might expect to borrow and have a higher degree of certainty that they could get a loan. We recognised concerns about repayment terms and, as has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, reduced the standard repayment rate from 15 per cent of benefit to 12 per cent, and extended the maximum repayment period from 78 to 104 weeks.
	Jobcentre Plus has undertaken a significant programme of change to modernise its services to customers and to improve efficiency. As has been recognised, Social Fund delivery has been centralised into 20 benefit delivery centres, pulling together expertise and providing opportunities for standardising procedures and improving the quality of decision-making. Jobcentre Plus is also looking at how to remove the need for a customer to visit an office to sign paperwork. That will provide better customer service and, in many cases, avoid the need for a customer to travel. We continue to look for ways to make improvements to the scheme and to its operation, where we can.
	Successive Ministers have made no secret that we want to change the budgeting loan element of the Social Fund to link it more closely with the Government's financial inclusion agenda. Many of the people we deal with on income-related benefits—the people who apply to the discretionary Social Fund—are financially excluded. They have little access to, or confidence in, their ability to handle mainstream financial services. As we know, exclusion from mainstream financial services can impose costs on those who can least afford them. The poorest in society can pay very high charges for credit; we are aware of 183 per cent or more from some home credit providers, and much more where someone has to resort to loan sharks. That is totally unacceptable.
	The Government's financial inclusion strategy is about ensuring that everyone has access to the services that they need to manage their money on a day-to-day basis, to plan for the future and cope with financial pressure, and to respond effectively to unexpected events. There is a clear link here with our employment goals. We see work as the best route out of poverty for most people. However, there is a problem if they do not have a bank account that wages can be paid into. Starting work means that they lose access to budgeting loans; and they may see little prospect of reasonable low-cost alternatives.
	The Government would like the significant resources that we have invested in the Social Fund to make a more effective contribution to helping people to overcome financial exclusion. The Government are trying to bridge the gap through helping to increase access to alternative forms of affordable credit for people on low income—whether or not on benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about the third sector. We recognise the valuable role already played by third-sector lenders in providing low-cost services and loans to financially excluded people. I am referring, as he did, particularly to credit unions and community development finance institutions, which operate on a not-for profit basis, especially in areas of high financial exclusion and deprivation.
	However, coverage is limited and in many areas people do not have access to those services. There is need for a larger capital and consumer base for the sector to grow and become sustainable. The Government launched their financial inclusion strategy in 2004. As part of that strategy, £42 million was made available from the £121 million financial inclusion fund for a growth fund to help make more affordable loans available to more people on low incomes in areas of high financial exclusion.
	Up to 30 November 2007, more than 53,000 loans worth more than £23.5 million had been made from the growth fund to financially excluded people. The Government's financial inclusion action plan for 2008-2011, published in December, included a further £38 million to support the growth fund. That action plan also announced plans to conduct a feasibility study to look into whether the private and third sectors could be brought into partnership with the Government in delivering a reformed Social Fund budgeting loans scheme.
	I believe that that could be a very important and significant step along the path to reform, but we must not underestimate the problems and the step change that would be needed. The study will need to assess a number of tough issues and we would have to be sure that any replacement scheme would deliver real advantages and would continue to provide the type of protection needed by the most vulnerable.
	I turn now to some of the more specific points raised. All three noble Lords raised the issue of crisis loans and customers who are unable to make their application by telephone. Jobcentre Plus prefers to take applications for crisis loan living expenses by telephone. It is the quickest way for customers to have their application processed. However, Jobcentre Plus accepts that there are some customers who, for legitimate reasons, are unable to make the application by telephone and it will continue to accept applications made in writing and submitted through one of its offices. I acknowledge that that has not been the case in the past in every instance. Training is absolutely necessary to ensure that there is no recurrence of the instance to which the noble Lord referred.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I understand that point perfectly, but will the department think carefully about the suggestion that applications for reviews might also be taken by telephone?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I will certainly give consideration to that and raise it with my colleagues. Specifically on crisis loans, which were the focus of some attention from all three noble Lords, in October 2007, the monthly number of applications reached about 200,000, which is up from about 100,000 per month in April 2006. There has been a large increase in crisis loan applications. There has been a response to that. There has been a doubling of the resource deployed on the Social Fund by asking staff from the contact centre directorate to get involved. There has been improved messaging on telephony to ensure that time is saved answering customer inquiries once they get through. We have changed the opening hours of the telephone arrangements from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm and we have changed the internal processes, so that only a short call is needed once it becomes clear that a customer will not qualify for a crisis loan. That reduces the overall time. Clearly, we need to keep focused on those matters.
	The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the Norwich benefit delivery centre. All three noble Lords referred to the disparity of outcomes across the various centres. We are aware of the need for action in Norwich in particular but, in mitigation, should mention that that is a centre to which we have only recently moved that work. Therefore, to an extent, that might be seen as teething problems, but we are not complacent and need to ensure that there is good performance right across the piece.
	On tackling arrears—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, focused on this—community care grant applications rose during the summer months. Action was taken region by region to get those applications back on track. During October, the backlog was reduced from 24,000 to 13,500. The usual weekly intake is about 12,000, so an outstanding figure of about 13,000 means that we are nearly up-to-date. However, during November, there was another large increase in the number of crisis loan applications. Alongside the unusually high intake of community care grants for this month, that meant that we fell behind again. There are continuing challenges to meet the targets that we have set.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not expect the Minister to answer at this precise moment, but is there not an annual pattern emerging? For example, what happened in November 2005 or 2003? Was it not foreseeable?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my understanding is that the increase in crisis loan applications, in particular, was way beyond prior experience. Whether or not the pattern that we have seen in recent months will be repeated in future months remains to be seen, but we clearly need to monitor that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised the issue of alignment payments. Of course we want to ensure that new claims to income-related benefits are paid as quickly as possible and that the minimum use is made of crisis loans in bridging the gaps. Jobcentre Plus has recently reviewed the guidance issued to staff on interim payments or payments on account, with instructions to ensure that those, rather than crisis loans, are paid when there is a delay in processing the main benefit. In addition to the written guidance, the process has been captured in the emergency payments component of the standard operating model.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to the quality of decision-making. The Social Fund Commissioners report for 2006-07 raised as an issue the development of a quality assurance framework. We have been pleased to address that issue and in response set up a joint IRS and Jobcentre Plus working group to develop a new checking regime set within the context of a quality assurance framework. The framework was implemented in the Inverness and Newcastle benefit delivery centres in November 2007, with those sites acting as trailblazers, with full evaluation taking place before national rollout.
	A number of points were raised asserting that there is a postcode lottery. There is no such lottery for budgeting loans, and since 1999 it has been possible to ensure consistent national outcomes by ensuring a national steer on the borrowing loan for budgeting loan awards, and making any adjustments needed during the year. That has meant that people in the same circumstances get access to the same award wherever they live. Crisis loans, which are of course payable only in cases of extreme urgency, are payable if other qualifying conditions are met irrespective of where someone lives, or the time of year.
	The variation is most frequently raised regarding community care grants. We are keen to ensure that the availability of community care grant funding is fairly distributed between Jobcentre Plus operational units to achieve as consistent an outcome as possible in proportion to demand in those areas. In recognition of the concerns of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Social Fund commissioner, my colleague James Plaskitt gave an undertaking to that committee to review the current methodology of allocating the budget. That work is currently under way, and we will feed back to that committee once it has been completed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about fridges; they are not an excluded item. On whether people can borrow budgeting loans in several tranches up to the permitted limit, the answer is yes. I will look at the record, and if I have not covered each point raised, I will seek—

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am not quite sure why we are so worried about the time, as I do not believe that we have had an hour yet. I did not hear the Minister respond at all to the significant point made about only 4.8 per cent of telephone calls being answered and the desperate problem of access to those lines. Can he please comment on that?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am sorry not to have dealt with that statistic, but I do not recognise it from the data that I have. On the current position, work has been undertaken on the whole telephony system, but I shall consult officials and write specifically to the noble Lord on that matter.
	The Social Fund provides an important source of financial support, acting as a budgeting tool and safety net to help millions of people when they are at their most vulnerable. It helps them to cope with costs of large or unexpected items of expenditure. We have made significant improvements and will continue to look for further reforms. We want to support the Government's wider financial inclusion aims—in particular, to help tackle disadvantage by ensuring opportunity for access to and use of the financial services products needed to participate fully in modern-day society and in the economy.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, before I move to adjourn, I was mentioning to my noble friend Lord McKenzie that his time was up because although I well recognise that we have not used the whole hour for this debate, it is time-limited. If we do not adhere to the time limits set then we are sometimes accused of not ensuring that the debate is properly organised. I say that by way of an explanation to your Lordships.
	I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.30 pm.]

Climate Change Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 28.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 158:
	Clause 28, page 15, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) The Committee's report must also set out the Committee's views on the programme for adaptation to climate change published by the Secretary of State under section 49 and its implementation, and any further action required as part of the programme."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Our amendments seek to have adaptation issues included in the report on progress. It is illogical to focus the report purely on meeting the budgets for carbon emissions. If the intention is to get an accurate picture of our progress towards stopping climate change, we need to have a real picture of the effects of our proposals and the effects of climate change on the environment. Meeting the budget, although important, is not the only yardstick by which our attempt to save the environment should be judged. It is important that the report has some regard for the fact that proposals that are meeting the budgets might also be damaging the environment in other ways. It should be the aim of the annual report to monitor our progress in a more holistic fashion.
	If proposals to reduce carbon emissions are having a negative effect on the environment in other ways, this can be stopped only if it is monitored and reported on. Admittedly, this is not as easy to measure as carbon emissions. However, it is still important to include the more wide-ranging effects of our proposals to ensure that all aspects of climate change are being addressed. If they are not, we risk hearing yearly a false picture of our attempts to safeguard the environment. We should not forget that stopping global warming must not come at the price of ruining the environment in other ways. As we on this side of the Chamber have mentioned before, the deforestation of the rainforests for biofuels is a perfect example of the way in which even well intentioned attempts to stop climate change might be counterproductive. We intend through our amendments to avoid this sort of tunnel vision, and thus think that it is important to include in the report consideration of the adaptation to climate change and proposals to stop it. With that in mind, I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: I shall speak to Amendment No. 183B. We debated the role of the climate change committee at some length earlier today. We on these Benches do not believe that the expertise lies there for dealing with matters of adaptation. The climate change committee has an extremely important role, and it should concentrate on it. We have spent some considerable time describing what it should do and how it should work.
	Although it does not need to be of the same stature and importance per se as the climate change committee, an independent scrutiny committee for adaptation is needed. In terms of climate change and climate change policy, there is a natural divide between adaptation and policy concerning stopping carbon and other greenhouse gases that cause climate change. A climate change committee can do one thing, but an independent scrutiny committee can do the other. We believe very strongly that there needs to be a mirror committee of statute concerned with adaptation. It would let the climate change committee get on with its area and this committee could look at adaptation.
	In this amendment, we have listed the areas that this committee should look at. We also would want to add it—I have not included them at this stage—ecology and biodiversity in relation to adaptation, which are key areas in addition to those I have listed in the amendment. Adaptation is a key, but small, part of this Bill, yet we know that if the world was perfect we would not need adaptation. Through flooding, rising sea levels and the other indicators of climate change that we see nationally and globally, we already know that we need to have a very active adaptation programme and strategy. It is right that it is part of this Bill—the Government have put it in—but we need it to be stronger and to take up a much greater role in this legislation. As part of that, we want in a way to copy the Government's ideas for an independent committee, but to have this for adaptation as well. This is key to the combating—perhaps not the mitigation—and the tackling of the problems that we have already stored up for ourselves over the past 50 years of industrialisation.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I support Amendment No. 183B, which is tabled also in my name. The previous two contributors have almost made apology for adaptation, but it is not only as important as the task of reducing greenhouse gases and climate change; it will become increasingly important. We already know that the carbon out there will increase the amount of floods, heat waves and droughts. Indeed, we are seeing floods again this week. This will become an increasingly important set of impacts with great public salience and relevance. They will be the immediately visible elements of climate change for the public.
	Adaptation will be important, not only to avoid some of the major economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change, but also to avoid the political impacts of an increasingly impacted upon and concerned public. It is important that the Bill is strengthened in terms of the adaptation agenda. One way to do that would be to provide for independent scrutiny of the Government's risk analysis and the adaptation programme in a similar way to the independent scrutiny to be exerted by the climate change committee over the targets issue.
	Specific skills will be needed for that; namely, skills in risk analysis, technical skills in water supply, flood risk management, public health, contingency planning, economics, asset management and infrastructure, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, ecology and biodiversity. Not only would these skills be necessary to do an appraisal of the risk assessment and the programmes, they also would enable the Government to gain from an appraisal of the adaptation agenda a background, a context, for successive carbon budgets. That would be a useful analysis to feed into the work of the Committee on Climate Change. Clearly if the impacts of climate change were getting worse, we would need to be a lot more stringent about how fast we were approaching the budgets and targets.
	The amendments that you have before you are threefold and to some extent they encapsulate the range of options open if there was to be a process of independent scrutiny. Amendment No. 158 talks about giving that role to the Committee on Climate Change. We have already talked about the fact that that would extend the role of the committee and diffuse it from its key focus, which needs to be targets in greenhouse gas reduction. It would mean another set of skills and the committee would probably have to be bigger, which would not be a good idea.
	Amendment No. 175 gives a role to the Environmental Audit Committee but really what is required is independent scrutiny on the basis of scientific expertise. The Environmental Audit Committee would be parliamentary scrutiny but would not be in the position of having specialist expertise. We would need to bring that in. Again, that does not quite do the trick.
	The proposal in Amendment No. 183B for an adaptation committee would bring in that specific expertise and would allow for an independent assessment of the Government's risk assessment on the adaptation plan and progress against it on an expert basis, not on a political basis. If that was seen as more bureaucracy, more committees and more cost, it could be done on a periodic basis rather than having a Standing Committee. That would reduce all of those concerns but it would be a bit cheeseparing, to be honest, in the face of the real economic and social impacts that climate change is going to produce in terms of our requirement to adapt. The figures for flood risk management and flood damage alone are astronomically large. Quibbling about the cost of a small expert committee is too much. An adaptation committee, given a very tight focus on technical assessment of the adaptation agenda, would provide a real focus that could feed into the considerations of the Committee on Climate Change. It would give a reassurance to the public and above all would probably give defence to the Government of the day when climate change impacts start to really produce major public concern about the floods, droughts, heat waves and desertification that we are inevitably going to see as climate change bites.

Lord Crickhowell: Not for the first time the structure of the Bill has got us into a bit of a tangle: an amendment has been moved in connection with Clause 28 to give a new role to the Committee on Climate Change when we are really looking at the provisions of Clause 49, which we are going to debate a good deal later. I agree that we are going to need a committee to report on this matter. As has already been indicated, there is a difficulty about my noble friend's amendment in the sense that he or the committee are looking at future policies—the effectiveness of policies to reduce future carbon emissions and progress in that direction. When we come to adaptation, we are not dealing so much with those future policies. We are dealing with the consequences of what has already happened over the past couple of hundred years. We are now facing the need to respond to what exists at present. There will come a moment when the two things interlock as we move into the future but for the foreseeable future, we have to adapt to the consequences of past actions. There is a legitimate question of whether, by giving it this task, it should really be for the climate change committee to look at future policies in addition to its existing heavy burdens.
	On the other hand, I am not sure that Amendment No. 183B goes far enough. If we are to have an independent scrutiny committee, it certainly will have to do what is suggested in that amendment, but it does not actually suggest that it should report on how things are going and the achievements so far. The new clause provides that the committee should consider the adequacy of assessments and of any programmes, but does not seek the progress report that my noble friend seeks in his amendment and what I think we should require.
	Curiously, Clause 49 provides the Secretary of State with a reporting function, but with no indication of how frequently that should happen and whether there would be regular updates. The clause states:
	"It is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament from time to time a programme".
	It then provides for the proposals and policies employed to meet the objectives that have been set. Later the clause provides that:
	"The second and each subsequent programme under this section must contain an assessment of the progress made towards implementing the objectives, proposals and policies set out in earlier programmes".
	But it does not say how frequently new programmes and policies should be developed. We could go for many years before the Secretary of State brings forward a set of new policies and proposals or any report at all on how well these matters are being dealt with.
	My conclusion from all this is that we have to have a regular system of reporting. It is highly desirable, and when we come to the later clause, I shall support amendments that address the need for thorough policies; we will debate them later. I do not think that either of the amendments before us fully meets the need for regular progress reports. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say and I hope he will agree that there is a need for such reports. It may be that on Report we shall have to come back with something like Amendment No. 183B to the relevant part of the Bill and make sure that regular reports are produced and are not dependent on how frequently the Secretary of State comes forward with fresh proposals. Indeed, if the noble Lord who moved the amendment were to come forward later with a suitably adjusted proposal, I certainly would support it.

Lord Puttnam: I support the principle behind this amendment. It is particularly useful to see the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his place, because I have two points that I wish to make. The first is that the only deficiency in the Joint Committee's report was the passage on adaptation. That had absolutely everything to do with time pressure. We were up against almost insane time constraints to get the report out, and we did not do that part justice. Indeed, all that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is accurate.
	Secondly, the only Member of the Committee who, so far as I am aware, has any real experience of the issue of adaptation is the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. When he was Secretary of State for Health, he moved with great speed and effectiveness on the issue of AIDS. The situation was similar in that it arose as a consequence of actions that had in some cases taken place years before; there was an awareness of the dangers, and the need to move swiftly. Adaptation will be expensive and complicated, and will involve people and expertise quite unlike those of the climate change committee itself. It is going to be a very important part of the Bill and I can only hope that we learn from the experiences of the past. We must take on board many of the actions taken so promptly and brilliantly by the Government of the day; frankly, that put Britain in a better place in the fight against AIDS than any other country in the world. If we can achieve the same with climate change, we could be very proud of ourselves.

The Earl of Selborne: Amendment No. 183B brings us to Part 4 of the Bill. We are discussing adaptation slightly out of context; we are still on the Committee on Climate Change. I accept that these three clauses may need amendment, but what needs to be discussed at this stage is whether the work of advising the Secretary of State on how he can fulfil his responsibilities in Part 4 can adequately be fulfilled by the Committee on Climate Change or one of its sub-committees, or whether it would be better to have a separate advisory body with different expertise. We have already heard from all around the Committee that the case for having a separate conduit is strong. The timescale is different, the expertise is different and the immediacy is different—although one could argue about that, perhaps.
	I am quite clear that it would be helpful to have expertise that was specifically encouraged to advise the Secretary of State—in the widest sense, meaning the whole Government. Just about every department and, indeed, the rest of the economy, will have to address the sort of issues that the committee envisaged in Amendment No. 183B, will be advising on. Although I accept that any amendment that imposes yet further committees has an onus to justify its position, in this case I would go along with the proposal.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I want to raise, from Amendment No. 183B, the important issue of embedded carbon. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned that this needs to be strengthened; it probably does. We should not forget that this is about not only future carbon emissions but trying to protect the infrastructure, as set out in this amendment. It is important to realise that an immense amount of carbon is already embedded in the infrastructure, in roads, power stations and water treatment plants. What if they are destroyed by flood? The housing stock is built to retain heat, rather than to be cool, which will be a major issue in the future. We have already talked about the enormous amount of carbon that has been put into the atmosphere over the past 200 years. We have to start thinking about preserving infrastructure, because replacing infrastructure is incredibly carbon-expensive. It is an issue that we will move back on to, but I very much hope that the Minister will realise that the committee should look at embedded carbon costs. If we lose the infrastructure and need to replace it, we will add yet more carbon.

Lord Rooker: At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord further—not that he should be embarrassed—I support what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said about the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. At that time he persuaded the then Cabinet to put that leaflet—some 20 million of them—through every door in the country. I do not think that a Labour Cabinet would have done it at the time. His powers of persuasion over the need for change were vital. This translates across; this is also a powerful argument that works in more than one policy area.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly demanded a timetable for the reports. I draw his attention to Clause 48, because the timetable is there. It says that the first report must be laid within three years of Royal Assent, with subsequent reports at least every five years after that. I know that most of the noble Lord's remarks were on Clause 49, but it is linked to Clause 48; both are about adaptation. The timetable is in Clause 48 because the Clause 49 report responds to the risks identified in Clause 48. In other words, something is set out in the Bill in respect of a timetable.
	The comments we have heard recognise that the Government's work on adaptation needs independent scrutiny, and we agree. We do not think that any of the amendments meet this need. However, I am more than happy to take away this issue and this package and consider them before the next stage. This comprises a separate issue in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made the point that the range of expertise required here is slightly different from that required in the rest of the Bill. This matter requires further work. We shall certainly consider independent scrutiny of the Government's work on adaptation.

Lord Crickhowell: I do not think that Clause 48 entirely meets the point that was made in this debate. That clause states:
	"It is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament from time to time a report containing an assessment of the risks for the United Kingdom of the current and predicted impact of climate change".
	However, what we are looking for here is a report on progress made in dealing with the matter. Therefore, we are trying to take the matter slightly further forward than Clause 48 provides for.

Lord Rooker: I accept that. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise. I realise that the Committee seeks to take the Bill further forward. The status quo is not acceptable to most Members. We are happy to look at this package comprising Amendments Nos. 158, 175 and 183B. We shall see whether we can find a satisfactory way of dealing with this. However, we baulk at an issue in Amendment No. 175. It is not appropriate for government to require Parliament to do things when Select Committees are their own masters. They are the House committees. Further, they may not always comprise their present form so there is a danger in including such a measure in primary legislation. We ought to be wary of that.
	As regards Amendment No. 183B, setting up new independent committees on an ad hoc basis could be resource intensive and we are not clear what such committees would do in between time. However, I am not knocking the amendment on these technical grounds. I am conscious that I forecast at Second Reading that the Government would bring forward an amendment with regard to what they intended to do about adaptation, and that we have not done so. However, we hope to do so very shortly. It is an area on which we want to move in Committee if possible so that people can see how the land lies. We shall come back to this matter on Report when we have considered it further.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I knew that we had taken our time for a purpose, which was to give the Minister a chance to prepare his response on this matter. I am pleased with the debate. We have moved the subject on. The case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for independent scrutiny seems to have been accepted by the Minister as being a possible way forward. We look forward to Report and to hearing more about the Government's proposals on adaptation in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 158A:
	Clause 28, page 15, line 13, leave out "30th June" and insert "31st August"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I shall speak first to Amendment No. 158A and then to Amendment No. 159 with which it is grouped.
	This section relates to the duty of the committee with regard to its annual reports. It makes special mention of its report in the second year after the end of a budgetary period. That will have to take account of the final statement from the Secretary of State who, under Section 14, will have had five months—until 31 May—to produce it. If we assume that, in any year where 31 May is a Saturday, a Sunday or a Bank Holiday Monday, the Secretary of State will have completed his report beforehand and the committee will have had between 20 and 22 days in which to produce the section reviewing the progress that has just been summarised by the Secretary of State. That reflects five years of a budgetary period.
	Obviously, one hopes that the committee and the Secretary of State will have a good working relationship and will, consequently, be generally aware of each other's relative position. That will not, however, necessarily be adequate to allow, in four weeks, a full appreciation of the Secretary of State's justification for the work of the preceding five-year budgetary period. Should the Secretary of State be unable to complete his report until, let us say, 1 or 2 June, the time available to the committee will be reduced by 5 or 10 per cent. There can very quickly be a significant erosion of the time to deliberate properly.
	As things stand, the Secretary of State will receive the report of the committee on or before 30 June and will then have three and a half months in which to draft his response, and discuss it with the other national authorities, prior to laying it before Parliament not later than 15 October.
	It seems to us that the balance on these dates is not quite right and that the committee should be given adequate time in which to evaluate the Secretary of State's assessment of each budgetary period. In our view such an evaluation is likely, every five years, to take considerably longer than the four weeks allowed in the Bill.
	Turning to Amendment No. 159, having just expressed our concern that the committee is not being given sufficient reporting time in the years where they have to include a commentary on the outcome of the preceding budgetary period, it would appear that the Government share our anxiety and are prepared in principle to allow the committee extra time in which to complete its statutory duties. Unfortunately, the wording in the Bill does not specify any circumstances in which that leeway will be applied. Our concern is that the only cause for extending the committee's reporting period will be where the Secretary of State is unable to meet his statutory time limit and the committee will find itself at the end of each five-year budgetary period with a scant four weeks in which to assimilate the final figures, assess their meaning, review the measures that gave rise to them and evaluate the outcomes.
	Few assemblies could contain a greater collective knowledge of the ways committees function than your Lordships' House, but experience tells me that if the secretariat can do all of the analysis and suggest a commentary that appears to all committee members to be logical, comprehensive and positive there will be little need of many meetings or further research. If, however, the situation is not so clear—if there is a range of opinion among the members of the committee or if the results to be assessed are not more or less as expected or desired—there may be a need for several meetings with a fair amount of preparation in between. In such circumstances, the final wording is also often seen as being critical. At such times, the four weeks allowed to the committee would be impossibly constraining. Our view is that this section, as it stands, is likely to lead to unnecessary stress and missed deadlines. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I speak to Amendments Nos. 159 and 160, which are tabled in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already set out very clear reasons for his amendments. I have just one question, as this is a probing amendment. Clause 28(4) says,
	"The Secretary of State may by order extend that period".
	Is there any limit to which that response can be extended, because many of us who have waited for Government responses to Select Committee reports and other such documents find that the Government's timetable can be slightly elastic in certain cases? I say that because it will obviously have major impacts on policy if the response is to be shifted over a long period, especially if you are dealing with a five-year period. Does that eat into the next year's budgetary period, or does it affect only the period in which the Government are responding? Does it have any effect on the budgetary provisions set out by the committee? The committee's work will obviously be greatly affected not only by its report but by the Government's response.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: To be fair, this is an interesting amendment. When we looked at the analysis of the amendments, we thought that other issues were bubbling away about setting budgets going forward, rolling periods and the 30 June report coinciding with other 30 June reports. Looking at the timetable, the intention is clearly to give the committee flexibility about extending the time that it needs to report and thereon to give the Secretary of State more time, should the committee decide to extend the timing of its report.
	In truth, there is not a deadline on the extension that the Secretary of State could put on the response. However, we view the Secretary of State's extension as being as a result of the committee's extension, so we would not wish there to be any suggestion—as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is suggesting—that there would be an expectation that the Secretary of State could just ponder the committee's report indefinitely.
	Given the points made by noble Lords this evening, we will think about it. It might be that I am not necessarily hearing the concerns properly. I will read the points made by noble Lords and think about the debate. I was looking at it from a completely different angle, so I do not want to detain the committee further with points that are possibly irrelevant. If I can add further or come up with any further ideas, I hope to offer noble Lords more reassurance about reporting deadlines.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful for that response from the Minister, which is very satisfactory. I hope that we can look at this again on Report and at least have a mechanism whereby the individual parties to this process of the ping-pong of reporting and responding have enough room to do the job properly and to do the issue credit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Response to Committee's reports on progress]:
	[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Duty to provide advice or other assistance on request]:

Baroness Billingham: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Clause 30, page 15, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) advise the authority on the potential for reducing the effects of climate change through the adoption of a daylight saving scheme."

Baroness Billingham: The debates and the development of the Bill have been absorbing. I was on the Joint Committee, along with many other Members who are here this evening. There has been a genuine dialogue and a good level of consensus on the Bill right from the outset, and I hope to follow that lead in moving the amendment.
	The purpose of the amendment is absolutely clear, and I will restrict all my arguments to the potential of energy saving through daylight saving schemes. I do not need to remind noble Lords that the purpose of daylight saving is to adapt time so that the daylight hours can be used more efficiently, corresponding closely with waking hours. There are numerous models, but it is not my intention to describe them at length. It is enough to say that the expert Committee on Climate Change would be far better placed to select a model for the United Kingdom.
	In previous debates we have suggested several additional duties to those laid out in the Bill for the climate change committee and I think that daylight saving could be another. All the scientific evidence suggests that reaching targets set out in the Bill will be a severe challenge. Those very targets may well become even more stringent as scientific evidence mounts as to the seriousness of climate change threat. In fact I would go as far as to say that the pressure is increasing daily, not only in emissions but also with a huge rise in energy prices. Daylight saving helps in both those areas.
	According to evidence received from Dr Garnsey at Cambridge University, who bases her work on statistics from the National Grid, there would have been an electricity saving of 2.78 megawatts if winter clock time had been Greenwich meantime plus one in 2006—a significant saving. Emissions savings would have been 1.2 million tonnes of CO2. That is using the most modest daylight saving schemes. More extreme models would be even more effective. There is also the fact that daylight saving switches usage away from peak time, which is more costly, to cheaper times, so the consumer benefits both ways, not only in lower emissions but in lower electricity bills.
	If proposals laid out in the Bill are to be translated into fact, measures to reduce climate change have got to be timed properly. The Stern report made no bones about it. The sooner we tackle climate change, it says, the cheaper and more effective it will be. So here is a start. We have role models all around the globe. The USA and Australia significantly have already adopted daylight saving schemes which have found favour with their citizens and at least another 70 countries have already instituted such schemes. There are more in the pipeline. I guarantee that all industrialised countries will look closely at more stringent schemes in the future.
	At virtually no cost, with proven success around the world, we could have our own daylight saving scheme in place in a very short time. We would have the guarantee of expert opinion from the climate change committee and we would see considerable energy savings for everyone in the UK.
	To reject this proposal would be flying in the face of scientific evidence and the well-being of our citizens. I hope I have made the case as energy-efficiently as I am able. I look forward to contributions from all sides of the Committee and, of course, from the Minister. I beg to move.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has made a very serious point and this may be the first amendment in this whole process that the Government are wonted to accept because it is very straightforward. In the Second World War, when energy was absolutely critical, we introduced daylight saving. We did that because it was necessary and it worked. At the end of the Second World War, for reasons I am not aware of, it was discontinued. That seemed a pity. There have been various attempts, however, to reintroduce daylight saving ever since and so far they have failed.
	In December I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, a supplementary oral question about the introduction of daylight saving as an energy measure and in his response he said he tended to agree with this proposal and that he thought it was a good idea. Here is an opportunity for him to move forward and agree something straightaway by accepting the amendment. It would be the first amendment in the whole of these five days which the Government had been prepared to accept forthwith. I hope, therefore, that this will work now and that we can move ahead. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has made it extremely clear that there are plenty of precedents for how you can establish this in a separate measure. It would be a simple measure, it would achieve the objectives of the Bill and it would counteract all the technical things about emissions which have been discussed. I hope that the Government will agree.

Baroness Greengross: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on this important amendment. She and others in the past have quoted extremely convincing and comprehensive research which illustrates how much energy could be saved by giving us just one extra hour of daylight in the summer months.
	Giving us that daylight would do a huge amount to reduce the effects of climate change while increasing the safety of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly the very young and very old. We know that we could also enhance the quality of their lives by doing this. It would make it safer for children to go out to play. We know that a lot of children in this country now suffer from a lack of vitamin D, which they get from sunlight, and an extra hour would make a great deal of difference to children's health. We also know that many people are scared of going out at night, because alcohol-related and drug-related crime is much more likely to take place in the evening and at night than in the early hours of the day. If we can, in one simple measure, reduce the use of energy in the country while making our population happier and safer, that must be a measure worth pursuing with all our energy.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: What is it about an issue like this that makes normally eminently sensible people lose all reason? I always thought that the purpose of growing old was to learn from one's mistakes. Members of the Committee will remember that this has been tried before, in 1968, and the experiment was abandoned before it was concluded because it was so widely unpopular.
	There are two ways of adjusting to the winter period. You have to decide whether you want to have dark mornings or light evenings and people have to adjust their working hours. Coming down to London nowadays, I am amazed at the lifestyle that most people seem to adopt. They have no idea that it is dark in the mornings because they seem to get up so late and the shops open at quite ridiculously late hours. Nothing much happens before ten o'clock and you cannot get hold of anybody. I come from a part of the world where people have to get up early because the goods they produce are demanded in the marketplace early in the day. Such an amendment is not about making evenings lighter but mornings darker. If you get up early in the morning, it is dark long enough before the day starts.
	I make a serious point about people who live in the countryside: the coldest time of the day is in the early morning. The period of travelling to work coincides with the frostiest of roads. Most rural roads are not gritted; certainly people who come to work at my place must travel on ungritted roads. This is a serious problem if you are starting your work in order to meet markets and get goods in the marketplace at the right time of day. So this measure does not have my personal support, or that of the Opposition.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I want to question the noble Lord a little on this. I would agree with him about days gone by—around the 1950s—when milk churns were put out at 6 am and cows were milked at that time. I come from a deeply rural area myself where milk tankers now usually collect the milk around midday or 1 pm. This argument of getting goods to market does not really hold as much water—or milk—as it might have done 30 or 40 years ago. If we were to be denied this amendment on the basis of dairy farmers in the midlands or Scotland, that would not be moving with the times.

Lord Lyell: I am not sure I follow the noble Baroness as I do not know where she lives. On my left we are about to hear a contribution from my noble friend Lord Caithness—he promised he would make it. I would be delighted to offer the noble Baroness one guess where he lives. It is not just "Scotland" or "the Midlands". I will get my diary out and find out when lighting up time is in Wick, where my noble friend lives.
	The arguments I have heard are that it is just lovely; it is quite all right and we can dance around. You are not old enough, but I remember the real blood and thunder. I ask the young noble Baroness and those who have spoken to pay fairly close attention to what my noble friend Lord Taylor on the Front Bench said. The hours of daylight are given, but it is hard, as the noble Baroness said, for those living north as I do. I live in Angus, which she will see from the map is quite far north. Yet my noble friend Lord Caithness lives even further north, about as far north as you can get. If we adopt so-called daylight saving, it is lovely here, it is just fine, but I invite the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, and others, to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness to Wick in winter. The days are getting a bit longer now.
	Above all, we should heed the wise words of my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is I think from Lincolnshire. Even so, he has made a sound point. I hope that the noble Baronesses who supported the amendment with such eloquence might think of those of us who perhaps live in the far north of the country. There is an advantage in the summer, when the days are longer and you do not need to use the lights—though of course in Sweden and Norway we can certainly find evidence that the lights are kept on for various reasons. The noble Baronesses and those who have proposed or supported this amendment might just think that this great United Kingdom of ours stretches a long way; indeed Scotland stretches even further than where I live. I would love to have some support and to hear the views from this Viking of the north, my noble friend.

Lord Rogan: In Ulster, we do not mind getting up in the early hours, in the darkness, if it helps the greater good of our fellow countrymen in the rest of the kingdom.

Lord Puttnam: Is this a reserved or devolved issue?

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I rise only briefly to remark on the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for resisting the amendment—that it would be unpopular and that is has been tried before and was rejected. If that is the attitude of the Conservative Front Bench in Opposition, heaven help us if they are in government. Many measures dealing with climate change are going to be unpopular. That seems the least convincing explanation. For all the robustness he has asked of the climate change committee, he has fallen at the first hurdle.

Lord Whitty: It is not so long ago that I had some responsibility in this House for road safety and then for agriculture. In the first job, I was told that daylight saving would undoubtedly save lives, and I think that is true. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, needs to look at the road safety statistics. In the second, the farmers were by and large against it. On the other hand, I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that practices in the countryside, agricultural collections and milking times have changed.
	I probably agree with the noble Lords who argue that in Scotland this is not yet so. Reflecting what my noble friend Lord Puttnam just said, it is possible if there are different impacts in different parts of the country for different Administrations within the land to take different decisions, as indeed operates in different parts of the country. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, would repeat this were he here. When I was Minister with responsibility for road safety, I actually got agreement that we should change from the Welsh and Northern Ireland regimes—admittedly the Northern Ireland regime at that point was not hugely democratic. The Scottish Ministers were adamantly opposed to it.
	I think that the energy arguments now overtake the arguments on road safety and agriculture and for the greater good we should at least address the issue. No doubt my noble friend will tell us whether we need an amendment to do that. I believe that the issue needs addressing.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Perhaps I may speak again as my contribution has been widely attacked. There are specific instances in which people still have market delivery deadlines, although some do not. Perhaps I may speak of a personal interest, which I must declare. We export to continental flower markets, and to catch the ferries we have to start our days early enough for the lorries to get down to the ports to ship the goods across to the Continent. There are circumstances in which people are still linked to rather old-fashioned markets and I happen to be involved in one.
	The difficulty is trying to separate the way in which human beings respond to projections of statistics. I accept that this may apply to a whole series of initiatives that are proposed under climate change proposals. We cannot truly predict how people will respond. If mornings are darker, will people get up later? What will be the savings if the working day extends well into the evenings? How will the energy savings be translated? We cannot be absolutely certain that what we are projecting on current behavioural patterns will carry on. I make no apology for expressing a resistance to this proposal because I think that I speak for the vast majority of my fellow citizens.

The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, is very eloquent; she was very eloquent in committee and she has been charming and eloquent tonight, as is her wont. However, after what my noble friend Lord Lyell said, I thought that I should say a few words. There is no doubt that this will be gruesomely hard for everyone; climate change will have that effect. If a small number of us are to be penalised, please do not insult us by saying that everyone will benefit. I was a little surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, said that there would be a saving for every person in the UK. That is totally untrue. There will be a considerable extra cost to the economy of the north of Scotland because of the geographical situation of the British Isles, the way in which the sun moves and the curvature of the earth.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said that every young person and every old person will benefit, but that is not true. That is totally false. There is no doubt that it will benefit some in the south, and if the great majority want to impose this on the north, that is democracy and that can happen, but please do not insult us by saying that we shall all benefit from it because clearly we will not. Farmers, schoolchildren, the old and those going to work will all have a much harder time because of the earth's curvature and the geographical situation of the UK.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talks about the inconvenience for the north of Scotland. Of course he is quite right, but the point is that the percentage of the population who live in the very north of Scotland is very small compared with the percentage of the total population. Others have spoken about the greater good for the larger number of people and we have to look at the percentage of the population that will benefit from such a measure.

The Earl of Caithness: I said that we shall all have to take the pain and there will be an awful lot of pain in a wide variety of areas. All I am saying to the proponents is for goodness' sake do not insult us by saying that we shall be better off.

Lord Rooker: I was hoping that this would continue a little while and that there would be no time for me. I have a speaking note to end all speaking notes but I dare not use it, and I shall not seek to make fun of my professional back-up.
	There is a bit of a problem here. Personally—and unless I speak personally I am speaking for the Government—I have a good deal of sympathy with the concept. We can go back to the history and, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, we can look at the various issues, at the various interest groups—whether road safety interests, farmers or anyone else who has to do things—and at the evidence of what happened in 1968, which I remember. We can think about all that and then dismiss it. We are now in a different world. The issue is whether this will help us in respect of climate change and emissions. If it was thought advantageous in that respect then there would be an overwhelming argument in favour, but all I can bring is bad news. By the way, I should say that I am not completely convinced that there is a settled government view on this because in the past couple of years, in Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I have heard one department say from this Dispatch Box that it was in favour of it but another department say the opposite. So this can be called an interim statement.
	I am sure that the experts will know this, but the Building Research Establishment undertook work for Defra in 2005, only two or three years ago. The study indicated that putting the clocks forward an additional hour in winter and summer would lead to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, corresponding to about 1 per cent of total UK emissions, as a result of increased energy consumption in UK buildings for lighting, space heating and cooling. It also showed that a switch to British Summer Time all year round would increase emissions by just under 0.5 per cent. The study was based on modelling patterns of energy use in the UK buildings stock. Even if there were conclusive evidence that a change would reduce emissions—and the evidence is that it would not—the Bill is intended as a framework to drive emissions reductions. So, we do not think that it would be appropriate to legislate on this in the Bill. It would be nicer if we could have a considered scientific paper on this and come back to it on Report, but there is not time.
	I shall not rely on what happened in 1968. We are supposed to be the Government of the present and the future and 1968 is the past. That experiment was abandoned for all sorts of reasons. The situations that apply today did not apply in 1968, so it is quite legitimate to raise this issue. The Building Research Establishment's research was probably quite narrow and not comprehensive. On the other hand, it is probably not a good idea to lumber the climate change committee with this. However, I hope that the issue keeps being resurrected and that, a bit like nuclear power, in time, it will win.

Baroness Billingham: I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. It certainly livened everybody up. Noble Lords looked terribly bored before, but I have got some daylight saving into this Chamber tonight.
	I am taking this particularly seriously. I take the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to task on this. This is not a light-hearted matter for many people. A few facts may clarify the situation, and if the Minister wants more evidence, I am sure that we can supply it. The difference between the time of daybreak in John o'Groats and in Land's End is 50 minutes. There is no argument about that; that is the difference. There are regional differences, and I accept them. I realise that Scottish crofters in 1950 or 1960 perhaps had a rough deal, but I do not know that that is the case now.
	I have spoken to people about this and Members in the other place from Scotland have spoken strongly about it. My intention tonight was not to broaden this amendment into a debate on road safety—I know the facts—or about children going to and from school. Fewer children would die on the roads, because it is more dangerous coming home in the dark than it is going to school in the dark. Those are RoSPA's figures, not mine. These are important issues. When I said that everybody would benefit, I meant they would benefit from the reduction in energy used in the whole country. This is a green issue. It is an important issue, not one that we should dismiss so casually and with such disrespect.
	I very much hope that we return to this debate and I hope that others will join in. I suspect that, in the fullness of time, we may well look back to a time when some of the proposals coming out of the climate change committee were more in tune with my proposals than with the opposition's. I thank everybody for their contribution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [General ancillary powers]:

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 161A:
	Clause 31, page 16, line 11, at end insert "including land or any interest in land"

Earl Cathcart: These amendments are designed to tidy up the language in Clause 31 and provide greater clarity. The only substantial change offered in the group is to add,
	"land or any interest in land",
	to the powers that relate to holding property. The Bill would be clearer if it read:
	"the Committee may ... acquire, hold and dispose of property, including land or any interest in land".
	The reason that there might be confusion is that "property" can be interpreted as only movable property. It is defined in this matter in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I expect the Minister to say, "Yes, yes, we meant land when we said property", but our amendment only seeks to make that crystal clear. I am interested in the Minister's thoughts. I beg to move.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I hope that my contribution will not be too boring in comparison to the lively and enjoyable debate that we have just had. It was very hard to sit on my hands during that discussion. I hope that I can offer the noble Earl enough reassurance to allow him to withdraw his amendment.
	In order to fulfil its functions under the Bill, the Committee on Climate Change may need to undertake other activities such as commissioning research or entering into contracts. Clause 31, to which these amendments relate, gives the committee the power to do anything that appears to it necessary or appropriate for the purpose of, or in connection with, carrying out its functions. These are standard provisions for a non-departmental public body that allow it to operate effectively and independently of government. Subsection (2) merely sets out examples to illustrate the scope of the power, and the additions these amendments propose are unnecessary.
	Amendment No. 161A would make explicit that the committee may acquire, hold and dispose of land or any interest in land, but this provision is covered by the current drafting of subsection 31(2)(b), to which the noble Earl referred. This provision illustrates the fact that the committee may acquire, hold and dispose of property. As the noble Earl suggested, "property" covers land and interests in land—referred to in law as real property—as well as other personal property. The amendment is therefore superfluous. I hope that those comments have helped to reassure the noble Earl.
	Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 are also an unnecessary addition to the list of specific examples of the use of ancillary powers. We do not need additional examples, because obtaining advice will be covered by Clause 31(1), which sets out the committee's general ancillary power, which is obviously very broad. Where that advice is in the form of research, for example, it is specifically covered by Clause 31(2)(a). I therefore see no value in making such amendments to the Bill, but I appreciate the opportunity to make this comment on the record. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Cathcart: I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 164:
	Clause 31, page 16, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) Each national authority must pay to the Committee in respect of each financial year a contribution referred to in this Part as the annual levy.
	( ) The amount of the annual levy in respect of each financial year is such amount as may be determined by the Committee.
	( ) The Committee may determine different amounts for the annual levy for different contributors.
	( ) The Committee must, in January of each year, consult each national authority on its proposed budget for the next financial year."

Earl Cathcart: This is a probing amendment, although it may not look like one. It places a duty on the national authorities to pay an annual levy to fund the work of the Committee on Climate Change. That is simply one way to fund it. However, by tabling the amendment, our intention was to seek an explanation for the record as to the precise cost structure and funding of the committee.
	Will the Minister explain for the record his predictions of how much it will cost and from where the money will come? Can he tell us what the shadow committee will cost and what will be the ongoing costs of the committee annually? Presumably, that is calculated assuming a committee of nine and a staff of 20. Does the Minister think that that will be enough money? Can he explain if he thinks that that will be an adequate staff? What provisions are there for increasing the committee's budget and its number of staff?
	Essentially, I want the Minister to explain the financial aspects of the committee, the ways in which he might foresee that changing and the mechanism for adjusting that change. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: In the interests of getting to the nuts and bolts of this, I will give what financial information I have, which may not be sufficient, but will give a flavour. The committee secretariat will be the core in-house analytical resource available to the climate change committee.
	In March 2007, alongside the draft Bill, the estimate was that the cost of the committee secretariat would come to just over £800,000 a year. Since then, taking account of the pre-legislative scrutiny, and as a result of discussion with the shadow secretariat as it scoped its work, it is reckoned that the resources made available to the committee should be increased by about 50 per cent. We anticipate that the secretariat will consist of about 20 people, representing a larger and more senior secretariat—a similar size and make-up to the team that carried out the Stern review.
	The other figure that I have—it can only be an estimate at this stage—is that we envisage that the committee will require in the region of £2.6 million per annum once it is put on a statutory basis. Those are the only figures that I have to share with the Committee.
	By the way, we do not believe that the committee's budget should be dictated by the committee. There is no non-departmental body in Whitehall that fixes its own budget. That may seem a good idea, but I can assure the Committee that that is not how the system works. So we cannot accept that amendment, but we are committed to ensuring that the committee is adequately resourced and will discuss and agree the committee's annual budget with both the national authorities and the committee itself. We do not envisage any difficulties with the devolved Administrations. They have agreed the Bill and the funding mechanisms.
	We are committed to ensuring that the committee provides good quality independent advice. To do that, it needs sufficient funding to be truly independent. As I said, the figure that I have at the moment is purely an estimate of just over £2.5 million, once it is on a statutory basis. I will seek to get some more information before Report, but it may not be much more detail than that, because these are very early days.

Lord Crickhowell: If I may follow that helpful statement, I am encouraged that the original budget estimates have been increased. The Joint Committee made two specific comments. It expressed a good deal of concern about the scale of the research budget included in the original estimates, as we felt that was likely to be inadequate. We also suggested—particularly in the light of comments from spokesmen and Ministers from Defra about the funding burden falling wholly on them—that the funding mechanism for the committee should be established outwith the Defra budget. Has the Minister any comment on those two specific points?

Lord Rooker: No, I regret that I have not, except that I imagine that this is new money—Defra certainly has no money. As I said, while it is in shadow form, the figure for this year, 2007-08, will be about £1.6 million, and once it is on a statutory basis it will be around £2.6 million, maybe a little more. Those are the only figures I have and one set was published in the regulatory impact assessment.

The Earl of Caithness: The Minister said something important just then. He will recall that I had a little go at him before on the membership and the finances of Defra; I am grateful for the letter that he wrote to me, long before Christmas, which found its way to me only a couple of days ago. It had gone round the houses a bit but is with me now. Will he confirm that he just said that all this is new money, and that none of it is coming from the existing Defra budget?

Lord Rooker: I do not have the figures in great detail in front of me, but it has to be funded because this is new, and from new legislation that has been agreed by Government. I am not saying that none of this will come from the present Defra budget; in that case, it would already be there. It will not have to come from what our running costs were before the climate change committee was, so to speak, a beam in someone's eye. Money is being spent now on the shadow secretariat—it has come from somewhere but has been allocated for that purpose.

The Earl of Caithness: It might be helpful if the Minister could write to me on how much money is allocated from within its existing finances in this year's Defra budget, and in the following two years. We could then say that we know that Defra has allocated so much, that it is under huge pressure and has to get rid of a lot of staff. We can then work out that, over and above that, either Defra has to take another chunk of money from another part of its pocket or it will be new money. It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me on that.

Lord Rooker: As I said, I will try to come back on this but I am not promising to write to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have already told the Committee that I will try to have some better figures on Report, which is not that far away. Given what he said, we will probably be on Report before the noble Earl gets a letter from me anyway.
	I am not wholly convinced that this is all on Defra anyway; it is from central Government. We are the lead department, but as I have repeatedly said, the climate change issue goes across Government. I will have to check where the blocks were. I need to come back with something, perhaps a briefing note on funding up to the present, like those we provided to Members of the Committee. That would be better, and more useful.

Earl Cathcart: I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation—I think. I was comforted when he said that the priority is the need to ensure that the committee is financed so that it can do its job properly. That is, of course, important, but it seems that whether it is Defra money or not—whether money is going into Defra or out of it—the logic is that it is new money. It has to be, as this is new legislation with new expenses that are probably not in the budget.
	I have no doubt that this will unfold. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Powers to give directions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This whole section empowers the national authorities to give binding instructions to the Committee on Climate Change on how it is to exercise its functions. We oppose the inclusion of the clause because we do not feel that it should be within the order-making powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe the committee's function or to amend its intended investigations. It would erode the independence of the committee if the execution of its duties could be changed by order. The functions of the committee are already set out in primary legislation, and the provision to have this changed by order is unnecessary and risks losing the independence which we feel is essential to the successful operation of the committee.
	We respect the fact that there might be situations in which national authorities might seek to have the committee investigate particular problems or issues. Still, it is not appropriate, if we intend to maintain the independence of the committee, to allow its functions to be determined by prescription. The roles and functions of the committee have already been the subject of much contention. Thus, it is not appropriate for these functions to be set and changed by order and without further debate. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: I welcome the Question in that it gives the Minister the opportunity to explain the circumstances in which this part of the Bill might be used. Although there is a subsection in it that says that the Secretary of State cannot direct what advice comes out of the committee, the way in which it is written gives rise to many questions about the effective independence of the committee, which could damage its reputation. I await the Minister's answer.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The Question gives me the chance to ask a rather stupid question: when is a national authority not a national authority? Clause 67 says:
	"In this Act 'national authority' means any of the following".
	The list starts with the Secretary of State. In this Bill, there is a form of distinction. I accept that there probably is a distinction, because the Secretary of State may well be in a somewhat separate situation from the national authorities. However, the definitions at the end of the Bill say that the Secretary of State is a national authority, and I wonder whether there might be an issue that should be clarified before we finally dispose of the Bill—if we ever reach Report, which I suppose we will one day; at the moment, Report seems to get further away rather than closer.

Lord Rooker: Clause 67 is perfectly straightforward. We are dealing with the United Kingdom body here; with the four institutions that will take the joint decisions: the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in effect the UK Government. The UK Government is the Secretary of State, hence the four national authorities. That is all it is. There is nothing special here. Nor is there anything new about it, but I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
	As I said, there is nothing new here. There is a natural suspicion, but honestly it is not justified. The power to give a direction to a non-departmental public body is perfectly standard and applies to all the NDPBs, but it is important to ensure good governance and financial probity. The power will not undermine the committee's independence in any way. Therefore, the clause states explicitly that the committee cannot be given directions on the content of advice, but it is important that the national authorities have the power to issue directions in the case of any non-departmental public body. This is to provide a degree of control over a publicly funded body by government as a reserve power.
	In what circumstances would the Government issue directions to the committee? In example 1, the Government may choose to issue directions for the committee's financial records to be checked by an independent party or person if there were concerns over accounting irregularities. In example 2, in requesting advice under Clause 30, the national authorities may also wish to direct the committee to provide information by a specific deadline to ensure that it is received within the timescale needed by the authority. We are doing no more than what is done with all non-departmental public bodies. There is nothing new here, but it is good governance and financial probity.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation.

Clause 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Trading schemes]:

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 164A:
	Clause 36, page 17, line 34, leave out "relevant national authority" and insert "Secretary of State"

Earl Cathcart: This Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State and the Committee on Climate Change have at every turn to consult the national authorities, although the latter have been given powers to give guidance and even directions to the committee. Furthermore, Clause 71 lays down that national authorities are to be treated as part of the UK, except for waste reduction schemes, climate change in Wales and fines. It is surprising therefore to read that national authorities may set up their own trading schemes. It is even more surprising to realise that this part of the Bill defines a trading scheme, sets broad limits on its activities, defines who the national authorities are and goes into some detail about the making of regulations and the giving of guidance, directions and grants, but says nothing about the scope of trading schemes. Are they each unique?
	Schedule 2 refers to activities occurring in various locations and to activities of a particular kind carried on in the UK or in part of the UK. Is this a clever way to make sure that the work is divided between the various authorities? For instance, Scotland would deal with schemes in transport and agriculture for the UK as a whole, while Wales would take manufacturing, shops, offices and commercial premises and England would have the NHS, the armed services and schools. Alternatively, is it intended that, for example, farmers in Scotland will have a trading scheme that reflects the way they have adopted the single farm payment scheme, while Wales and England have something different? Will the suppliers of gas and electricity find themselves dealing with three or four different schemes or will they face many schemes set up and run by three or four Administrations? Can a participant belong to more than one trading scheme? Will he be able to shop around? Will someone with interest in several places be able to put all those interests into the scheme that gives him the best deal? Will someone with several interests have to subscribe to a number of schemes?
	The Explanatory Notes seem to imply that the Secretary of State will make schemes only in those areas for which the national authorities do not have delegated powers. Page 29 of the Explanatory Notes says that Clause 39(7),
	"provides that the Secretary of State has the power to make trading schemes in relation to all other matters".
	Will suppliers of electricity, heating oil and road fuel have to cope with different paperwork for different end users? Will users have to submit different returns depending on where they have bought, used or saved energy? Will there be different measurements and calculations?
	These schemes were mentioned on Second Reading. I sensed a vague feeling of unease, but the main concentration was on the moral position of trading schemes using money from the West to buy savings in the developing economies. However, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to the different methods of calculation in use and my noble friend Lord Caithness to sectoral targets. How will trading schemes be controlled? Who will ensure that they are effective and efficient? Will there be a mechanism for preventing conflicting overlaps or areas where nothing is done?
	In Part 1of the Bill, the Secretary of State and the committee are constrained on 12 occasions to consult or inform the national authorities before taking action. In Part 3 on trading schemes, national authorities are twice required to obtain and take into account the advice of the committee. There are no such requirements in Schedules 2, 3 or 4 and there is nowhere any stipulation that the Secretary of State must approve proposals from the devolved Administrations. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: We will come on to this in a later amendments. Although from these Benches we welcome devolution in these areas, I have a number of questions for the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. One of the characteristics of trading schemes is that the smaller they are, the more difficult the marketability of the asset. Although I applaud the idea that Wales, Scotland, England or even Northern Ireland can have their own individual trading schemes to do with emissions, I cannot conceive of it as being practically possible. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister what might be envisaged by this clause.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I would like to argue in favour of this amendment. It seems to me that we are asking for trouble. You only have to look at the appalling difficulties between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland with differentials in cross-border duties leading to strong cross-border smuggling operations to see what can happen if you get two different regimes in close proximity. I am trying to imagine what might happen in Hereford if they supply goods to Wales or Wales supplies goods to Hereford because of the cross-border situation. The same situation could arise in Berwick-upon-Tweed or Carlisle between England and Scotland. We shall find ourselves fraught with difficulty if we have too many schemes. Therefore, the proposal that the Secretary of State should have the responsibility for controlling this situation is probably very close to essential, if not absolutely essential.

Lord Rooker: With respect, I do not think the drafters of the amendment have fully appreciated its practical significance so I will seek to explain that. It is far more efficient in most cases for the UK to act as a whole—there is no doubt about that or any criticism—but we do not think it would be helpful to preclude these single authorities acting alone. On a much more serious note, this amendment does not take account of the fact that in many of the areas where action will need to be taken, it is a devolved issue. This amendment will stop things happening in those areas. The Secretary of State cannot act in terms of Scotland and Northern Ireland in devolved matters. We have a pig in a poke here. What I think was intended from the noble Earl's speech would be a much more complicated amendment.
	My note needed that preamble because this is quite a serious issue and I would not want it to go by default. The amendment would remove the ability to introduce UK-wide trading schemes in areas of the UK which were devolved. That ought to turn everybody off. Once the penny drops that taking out "national authorities" and putting in "Secretary of State" means that in any area of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales where it is a devolved issue, you cannot have a UK-wide system because the Secretary of State has no authority to bring in those measures. They have to be brought in by the devolved authority. At a stroke, UK-wide trading schemes would be stopped in areas where what you are doing for trading is a devolved matter.
	The amendment would also remove the power of the devolved Administrations to establish trading schemes using the powers in the Bill either individually or in concert with one or more of the other national authorities. Taking that approach would not be consistent with the flexible approach we have adopted elsewhere in the Bill. We think that flexibility is important, given the long-term framework of the legislation to establish us to 2050 and beyond.
	As I have said, it is the case that significant parts of climate change policy are devolved in different parts of the UK, and the devolution settlements are themselves different. This amendment would make it impossible for the very thing noble Lords have talked about to happen: it would be impossible for UK-wide trading schemes to be introduced. I rest my case there because we all want the schemes to be as large as possible and thus get economies of scale. It would limit the effectiveness of the powers and the ability to reduce emissions through them, and it would lead to considerable duplication and administrative complexity for business. In other words, the amendment would have precisely the opposite effect of what is intended simply because whoever drafted it forgot that in parts of the UK, policy issues are devolved and the Secretary of State has no authority.
	I shall give one example: that of the new carbon reduction commitment. The new trading scheme targeting the emissions from large non energy-intensive public and private organisations is in a policy area which is devolved across the UK. We have proposed for consultation to introduce this policy on a UK-wide basis using the powers in this Bill. However, the amendment would make that impossible. There would be no UK-wide emissions trade schemes where areas are devolved. Because most schemes would be based on the UK, it would be much more efficient that way.

Lord Dixon-Smith: What the Minister is saying is that we are damned if we do and damned if we do not, and I am not sure how we are to get around that dilemma. I wonder if he could explain the way around it. I accept, because I must, that if our amendment goes through there would be parts of the UK where these matters are devolved and a marketing scheme could not be applied. That is a problem and gives a different form of differential. But if we have the individual devolved authorities being able to establish their own marketing schemes all on different bases, we still have the problem. I am sure that the intention of my noble friend is to try to ensure that do not we have a problem with differentials. I do not think, with respect, that the Minister has explained how we can overcome that.

Lord Rooker: I freely admit that I have not explained because we are trying to address two different issues here. On the one hand, the intention is to stop little trading schemes being set up in different parts of the UK. That would cause difficulties. Our intention is for the Bill to be as flexible as possible and in the main for most trading schemes to be UK wide. But to be UK-wide in devolved areas where the policy is devolved, we have to include the national authorities; that is, the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Administrations. Acting in concert with the Secretary of State—with England, if I can put it that way—we can get a UK-wide trading scheme up and running. So if the intention is to stop one-off trading schemes in the national authority areas alone, frankly this amendment would not do that; you would need another amendment for that.
	Accepting this amendment would stop the very thing that we are all agreed might be desirable—UK-wide systems. But if you want to stop separate systems from England being set up in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that requires a completely different amendment. The Bill is sufficiently flexible to allow the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in their various ways, to put in place mechanisms for doing something for them alone. It would be almost impossible to impose this on Northern Ireland because it has to deal with the Republic of Ireland; there is no question about that.
	In the interests of less complexity and not putting burdens on business, it would be in the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be part of a UK setup. The Bill allows for flexibility should there be an occasion where a policy area could be dealt with another way. I oppose the amendment because it simply stops UK-wide trading schemes in areas where the policy issue is devolved. That is my starting point and, on that alone, it is the end of the discussion. If it is desired to do what was said in the opening speech, that is for another amendment, not this one.

Lord Crickhowell: I do not want to delay the Committee at a time when the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms is beginning to look distinctly restless, as I daresay others are. The Minister's answer became increasingly helpful and constructive as he went on. He started by saying that he did not think that we had understood the practical significance of the clause. Of course I understand the point about precluding UK-wide trading schemes. The difficulty is that up until now we have had very little explanation from the Government. The Minister has probably given more explanation than has been given before as to what these trading schemes are likely to be.
	Again, I look at the work of the Joint Committee. We probed and could not get much out of the Government at that stage. There was mention of a possible carbon reduction commitment scheme, an energy efficiency scheme, and that was about all. The Minister must not be surprised if we probe the intentions of what is potentially a very wide scheme when we have had practically no explanation of what might emerge as proposals. We seek to discover a little more of what is in the mind of the Government. As he went on, the Minister, who sounded—uncharacteristically—a tiny bit irritated at the start of proceedings, became more helpful and constructive. If it is possible for rather more thinking to be put on the table about the potential use of the main clause, the Minister might have rather less difficulty with any suggested amendments that might come forward at the next stage.

Lord Rooker: I honestly was not at all irritated. I suppose the penny was dropping when I listened to the speech. Then, when I read my notes, I thought that the speech was asking for something that could not be delivered by this amendment. That was the point. Thank heavens for parliamentary scrutiny; that is all that I can say. That is what this is all about and that is where we will benefit from this debate.

Earl Cathcart: That was quite a useful amendment and discussion. We are trying to get a single UK trading scheme, rather than separate schemes in the four separate countries of the UK. The Minister used the term "in concert"; that is exactly what is needed here. We are seeking uniformity across the national authorities, so that one gets a single UK trading scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 165:
	Clause 36, page 18, line 1, after "activities" insert "including those undertaken by individuals whether singly or as a community"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The purpose of this amendment is to test whether, within the term "trading schemes," as defined in Part 3 of the Bill, it is indeed the Government's intention to continue to allow personal carbon-trading to be an area that the Secretary of State could choose to implement. In moving this, I recognise that it is asking a lot for this still to be included, because it could be politically very unpopular. As I shall say in this brief introduction to the issue, it comes fraught with difficulty. In the Joint Committee we took a very limited amount of evidence on personal carbon-trading schemes.
	David Miliband appeared before the committee and was interested in these schemes. Defra commissioned a report from the sustainable energy centre in November 2006 which concluded that personal carbon trading would be an effective, measurable way of reducing UK carbon emissions, which might be fairer than a carbon tax. I am sure that the Minister will tell us the results of Defra's feasibility analysis and discussions. It is looking at,
	"whether a carbon trading scheme could be a proportionate, effective, socially equitable and financially viable approach",
	compared with other policy options. However, I ask the Minister whether it could be effective, as well as other policy options, because I consider that that is what we are looking at.
	What really attracts me to the idea of personal carbon trading is that it gives power back to individuals as regards the whole issue of climate change and reducing carbon in terms of the individual's place in this whole scheme of things. I am aware that think tanks, for example the RSA and IPPR, are also looking at these issues. IPPR states that personal carbon trading schemes are enormously appealing given the equality principles on which they are based but recognises that they are likely to be politically unpopular, at least to begin with. That is the crux of the issue. When the Minister appeared before the Joint Committee he believed that this was such a big step politically that it would need primary legislation.
	Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, which is also looking at this matter, identifies a,
	"perceived lack of social and political acceptability".
	The common ground of all the studies to date or ongoing—most of them are ongoing—is that such a measure has a lot of merit but that there is great political nervousness about moving forward with it. My purpose in tabling this amendment is to ask the Minister how brave the Government are willing to be. Would they be willing to pilot such a scheme in areas that are already committed to it, such as transition towns? What sort of resources is Defra willing to commit to this? Some assessments put the costs of a pilot scheme at somewhere between £500,000 and £950,000. Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute suggests that voluntary trials looking particularly at the behavioural and attitudinal impacts of the scheme on participants would take between two and a half to three years from initiation to final report.
	As I say, there is a lot of work going on. IPPR is commissioning a poll to see what public awareness there is on this issue. Obviously, sensitivity issues are involved when we ask people to divulge the carbon allowances that they may get through in their personal lives. As a party we argued against identity cards and divulging lots of personal data. Such a scheme might involve state intrusion into people's day-to-day lifestyles. That would be a difficult matter. That issue would have to be weighed against whether the scheme would be a good way to reduce personal carbon allowances. However, I believe that it has merits and deserves to be looked at seriously. I should like to hear from the Minister how Defra has got on with regard to this issue but I should most like an assurance that the Government will keep the measure in the Bill. I suspect that we may hear an argument for taking it out. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, nods his head. That would be a great pity as the merits of the case have already been made by a number of eminent think tanks. I hope that the Government will keep it in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly anticipated that I might rise to take a somewhat different view from hers. The two issues tonight are whether the Bill, as it stands, would enable a personal carbon allowances scheme to be introduced and whether it should be introduced. The amendment seeks to ensure that it would—to put beyond doubt that it would. When we had the briefing meeting with the Bill Committee team some days ago we were there were told that the Bill would permit personal carbon allowances to be introduced. It is in that context that I would like to address the Committee.
	It is late and I apologise for that, but of all the issues that affect individuals this one is actually something that would be a real political hot potato. If, in due course, the Government did introduce it using the powers of the Bill, people would say, "What was your Lordships' House doing not debating it very thoroughly?" Considering it is 10.20 pm—pretty late—it is not a very good way of doing that. Therefore, I beg indulgence to say a few words.
	Carbon allowance schemes or issuing emissions rights is a very polite way of saying rationing. Power stations will be issued with rations for how much they can emit. Do not let there be any mistake, we are talking about personal carbon rationing: issuing people with rations. In the Second World War you would have been issued with a ration book. Whatever the scheme is, it will be a ration card. It will be issuing rations to people. The difference between that and the Second World War is that people will be able to trade those rations. As I recall, because I was only a very young child at the time, in the war you were not allowed to do that. Moreover, you would be able to buy more rations—and it is an important question whether you would be able to—as, indeed, power stations will be able to buy extra carbon allowances if they can get them on the open market.
	It is a question of issuing people with rations for the right to buy goods or services that result in carbon emissions. I will do my best not to argue for or against the scheme but simply draw attention to what would be involved and whether it should be the subject of separate primary legislation or should be permitted to get through under secondary legislation if a future Government were ever minded so to do.
	Those who advocate it, for example, say that it would apply in the first instance to the purchase by individuals, families or whoever it happens to be of electricity, gas and petrol and travel by air, bus or train. That is how it would start. People would be issued rations and whenever they went into a petrol station or paid for gas and electricity, they would not only have to pay money, they would have to hand over part of their ration.
	There are important questions for any scheme over how to allocate these rations. Who would get what? Would everybody get the same? Would equal amounts go to everyone? That, as I understand it from most proponents, would be the case. Would babies get it when they were born, like a child trust fund? How much would the ration be and how would it change over their youth? Would people be able to trade their rations? Would people have to buy their rations at auction, because that is the case in some of the trading schemes being produced? Would people be issued with ration cards or books?
	All that would be recorded central data, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. We would have to tell people that a regulatory authority would know every time you bought a gallon of petrol, or travelled by bus or air. That would have to be monitored because, apart from anything else, you would have to check for fraud. You could be certain, as with any other case, that that would apply; plenty of ration fraud happened during the Second World War.
	In any case, the public at large might feel that this is duplicating carbon trading, because the gas and electricity power suppliers have been given rations for carbon emissions allowances, and they have already had to buy extra carbon emissions. That is pushing up the price of electricity. That is the rationale behind the Government's nuclear power policy of the past few days. The price of electricity will be forced up, which will make nuclear power more economic, so people might reasonably say, "What are we having to be issued with rations for? We are already paying a higher price for gas and electricity. What on earth is this all about?". The price of petrol is going through the roof at £5 a gallon, and it will go still higher. People will say that it is double counting if they are told that in addition they will have to give up some rations.
	We are all agreed, thank goodness, that aviation is coming into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. That will push up the price of air fares, and people will also have to hand over rations. As I said at the outset, the question is not whether personal carbon trading allowances are a good thing or a bad thing, but whether they raise issues that would require careful consideration of primary legislation to provide an appropriate framework, rather than being introduced, if ever a Government were so minded, using the powers in the Bill, which is designed to do that.
	The issues raise so many different considerations that people would expect noble Lords to ask most serious questions about the Government allowing something like this to go through at this time of night and saying, "In due course, these powers could be used". I have one or two questions for the Minister. When Mr Miliband, who was Secretary of State, came before the committee, he went rather further than the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. I apologise, but I have forgotten my reading glasses, so I cannot read the text. My recollection is that when I pressed him, the Secretary of State said that he found it inconceivable that the powers in the Bill could be used to smuggle in something of the significance of personal carbon trading allowances. That is strong language.
	Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government's view? Do they regard it as inconceivable that you could smuggle in personal carbon trading allowances under the powers in the Bill? Is that because they want to keep the powers in the Bill but they would not do this at the moment, or because they do not think that it would ever be appropriate to use the powers even when the Bill becomes an Act? Will they consider going further than that and giving an assurance that they would not do so? Will they respond, in due course if appropriate, to a proposal that the Bill be amended so that personal carbon trading allowances could not be introduced in the Bill but would require separate legislation?

Lord Crickhowell: I will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, has rendered the Committee a very considerable service by drawing attention to this matter. I rather wish that the Government would try to smuggle in such a scheme before the next election. I think that it would have the same effects as some legislation that I recall when I was Minister had on the then Conservative Government. It would guarantee the election of an alternative Administration.
	The noble Lord's memory is perfectly correct about what Mr Miliband said. He said that he was an enthusiast for the idea of personal carbon allowances. He then went on:
	"Technically I suppose you could smuggle it in under one of these provisions but frankly that is not the real world. It is inconceivable that a Government would do that".
	He then went on to say that it was so inconceivable it was not worth excluding it. That was OTT, he said. I am not sure about that. If it is so inconceivable and if it has the implications spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, we should exclude it. It is not something that could possibly be introduced by order. Therefore, it would be much better to clarify the matter and make sure that no one was so foolish as to make the attempt in the future.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I was asked whether the Government was going to be brave. It would be a brave Whip in the House of Lords who sought to go further than the Secretary of State on this matter. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this short debate—bravely enough, I hope.
	I want to make things clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who asked whether the Government ruled personal carbon trading out of the Bill. In response, I can say that we are ruling it out of this Bill now, but we are not ruling it out as an area of active research and active consideration. For my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds, I would like to take some time to reiterate the comments made by my right honourable friend David Miliband to the Joint Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, started to do. In particular, my right honourable friend said:
	"I think it is frankly inconceivable that fundamental changes like that would be smuggled in under these provisions. To have a clause excluding them seems politically odd to me ... there would be quite big technical issues about drafting an exclusionary order of that nature".
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, picked up on those points, but I want to put them on the record in order to take the discussions forward, as we go on to Report stage.
	I shall take a few minutes to respond to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Amendment No. 165 calls for explicit reference to be made to trading schemes that operate on a personal or community level. The noble Baroness is well aware that the Bill provides that a trading scheme may be established if it encourages,
	"activities that consist of, or that cause or contribute, directly or indirectly, to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or the removal of greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".
	Technically, as the noble Baroness knows well, that means that there is no restriction on where in the economy or at which level of society the schemes may be introduced. Bearing in mind my comments, she will know the context in which we are debating this.
	During the pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee, the Secretary of State indicated that we did not envisage using the enabling powers to support the introduction of personal carbon trading schemes. I reiterate my noble friend's point: any such scheme would require change of quite a different order of magnitude to that required for a scheme limited to a particular sector or group of sectors. By its very nature, it would have the potential to impact directly on individuals.
	There is a link here to the separate question about the Government's views on personal carbon trading, which are of great concern to the noble Baroness. We are certainly committed to exploring action to tackle emissions at individual and community level. However, there is still a lot of work ahead to explore whether or not—as the noble Baroness asked—personal trading is a realistic and workable policy option.
	The Government are looking into the potential value of personal carbon trading, as just one of a number of potential long-term options being explored for making individuals better informed about, and involved in, tackling climate change. We expect to be able to make a decision on whether further analysis is necessary this year.
	The noble Baroness asked what the Government are doing to promote further investigation of this concept. The Government are considering personal carbon trading on a number of levels. For example, a cross-departmental working group has been established to consider personal carbon trading in detail. This of course includes officials from Defra, as well as from BERR, the Department for Transport, the Department of Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury and the Sustainable Development Commission. The Government are keen to make progress, and a pre-feasibility study is being carried out to answer some of the key questions on personal carbon trading. The study, as the noble Baroness knows, is due to report this year.
	Work in government on personal carbon trading is being supplemented by a significant amount of work, as the noble Baroness has suggested, in the academic community; Defra is contributing to its funding. A number of these relevant bodies are members of a wider—I cannot say "PCT" as that means "primary care trust"—personal carbon trading advisory board which has been established to consider the issue. We are interested in the idea of personal carbon trading. However, given its wider-reaching impact on society, it is right that any decision is based on a thoroughgoing exploration and well established evidence base.
	The noble Baroness asked about piloting or a voluntary scheme. The scoping study produced by the Centre of Sustainable Energy recommended addressing the high-level questions surrounding personal carbon trading before considering a pilot or a trial scheme. Pilot systems would, as the noble Baroness is aware, inevitably be simpler, potentially fault ridden and less defined than any final system. They could lead to failure and subsequent public distrust if a pilot was not carefully thought through at the highest levels and in detail.
	Additionally, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pilot one of the most important factors behind the scheme: its compulsory and national nature. We do not, however, rule out exploring likely individual responses, perhaps by developing and testing simulation games or running some trials. However, while these could provide some valuable information, they could not and should not be seen as formal pilots for a national mandatory scheme.
	The noble Baroness asked about ID cards. For the record, the report of the Centre for Sustainable Energy does not recommend this. While noting that some academics, such as those at the Tyndall Centre, have stated that such a link would provide maximum levels of protection against fraud, the report goes on to state that personal carbon trading could be integrated within the banking system—which is of course an alternative way of looking at it—and that no link with ID cards would be necessary. Finally, the noble Baroness asked about Defra's financial commitment. Over the financial year 2007-08, Defra will have spent over £140,000 on external work to explore the details of personal carbon trading, backed by over £100,000 of internal staff resource. I hope that I have been able to pick up on questions raised by Members of the Committee in this short debate, and that, with that, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a full reply, even at this time of night. It is an important issue, which I hope we will come back to—probably not during the passage of this Bill, but when the Defra feasibility study reports. I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have perhaps raised some of the downsides of the scheme, because it is important to go into this with open eyes. I hope that we can pursue it in the future.

Lord Rooker: For the convenience of the Committee and being conscious of the time, I revert back to our previous debate on Amendment No. 164A. There was a point I did not answer and I will use this extra time for clarification. If the devolved Administrations want to use and invent a trading scheme for their purposes, they can do so now without the powers in this Bill. The fact is, we would rather they used the powers in this Bill. Then, if they did that, the other parts of the UK could join with them. Without the powers in this Bill, that would not be allowed to happen. That is the point I did not make when we were having the previous debate.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 10.40 pm.